How prosimian primates represent tools: experiments with two lemur species (Eulemur fulvus and Lemur catta)

The authors examined how 2 lemur species (Eulemur fulvus and Lemur catta) reason about tools. Experiment 1 allowed subjects to use 1 of 2 canes to retrieve an inaccessible food reward. Lemurs learned to solve this problem as quickly as other primates. Experiment 2 then presented subjects with novel tools differing from the originals along one featural dimension. Subjects attended more to tools' sizes than to their colors and made no distinction between tools' shapes and textures. Experiments 3 and 4 presented problems in which some of the tools' orientations had to be modified relative to the food. Subjects performed well on these problems, sometimes modifying the position of the tool. These results are discussed in light of the performance of other primates on this task.     

Typical Performance,Maximal Performance,and Performance Variability: Expanding Our Understanding of How Organizations Value Performance

Existing research has distinguished between typical and maximal performance. Performance variability is another potentially important aspect of performance that has been infrequently studied. Using longitudinal data from the National Basketball Association (N = 269), we address this gap by examining how these three conceptualizations of performance are related to how organizations compensate their employees. Results indicate that each of these performance aspects is bivariately related to compensation levels, accounting for between 32% and 58% of the variance in compensation. In addition, typical performance and performance variability incrementally predicts compensation levels, although maximal performance does not. Implications for research and practice are discussed.     

Match performance and physical capacity of players in the top three competitive standards of English professional soccer

The aim of this study was to compare the match performance and physical capacity of players in the top three competitive standards of English soccer. Match performance data were collected from players in the FA Premier League (n = 190), Championship (n = 155) and League 1 (n = 366) using a multiple-camera system. In addition, a selection of players from the Premier League (n = 56), Championship (n = 61) and League 1 (n = 32) performed the Yo-Yo intermittent endurance test level 2 (Yo-Yo IE2) to determine physical capacity. Players in League 1 and the Championship performed more (p < .01) high-intensity running than those in the Premier League (Effect Size [ES]: 0.4–1.0). Technical indicators such as pass completion, frequency of forward and total passes, balls received and average touches per possession were 4–39% higher (p < .01) in the Premier League compared to lower standards (ES: 0.3–0.6). Players also covered more (p < .05) high-intensity running when moving down (n = 20) from the Premier League to the Championship (ES: 0.4) but not when players moved up (n = 18) standards (ES: 0.2). Similar Yo-Yo IE2 test performances were observed in Premier League, Championship and League 1 players (ES: 0.2–0.3). Large magnitude relationships (p < .05) were observed between Yo-Yo IE2 test performances and the total and high-intensity running distance covered in both Championship (r = .56 and .64) and Premier League matches (r = .61 and .54). The data demonstrate that high-intensity running distance was greater in players at lower compared to higher competitive standards despite a similar physical capacity in a subsample of players in each standard. These findings could be associated with technical characteristics inherent to lower standards that require players to tax their physical capacity to a greater extent but additional research is still required to confirm these findings.