Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Inferential reasoning by exclusion in pigeons, dogs, and humans

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Animal Cognition Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The ability to reason by exclusion (which is defined as the selection of the correct alternative by logically excluding other potential alternatives; Call in Anim Cogn 9:393–403 2006) is well established in humans. Several studies have found it to be present in some nonhuman species as well, whereas it seems to be somewhat limited or even absent in others. As inconsistent methodology might have contributed to the revealed inter-species differences, we examined reasoning by exclusion in pigeons (n = 6), dogs (n = 6), students (n = 6), and children (n = 8) under almost equal experimental conditions. After being trained in a computer-controlled two-choice procedure to discriminate between four positive (S+) and four negative (S−) photographs, the subjects were tested with displays consisting of one S− and one of four novel stimuli (S′). One pigeon, half of the dogs and almost all humans preferred S′ over S−, thereby choosing either by novelty, or by avoiding S− without acquiring any knowledge about S′, or by inferring positive class membership of S′ by excluding S−. To decide among these strategies the subjects that showed a preference for S′ were then tested with displays consisting of one of the S′ and one of four novel stimuli (S′′). Although the pigeon preferentially chose the S′′ and by novelty, dogs and humans maintained their preference for S′, thereby showing evidence of reasoning by exclusion. Taken together, the results of the present study suggest that none of the pigeons, but half of the dogs and almost all humans inferred positive class membership of S′ by logically excluding S−.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Of course we could have counteracted such effects by rewarding choices of S′. However, what we wanted to investigate were possible preferences for S′ as a result of reasoning by exclusion, not of reinforcement. Also, we suspected that providing partial reinforcement or rewarding the one or the other stimulus type in half of the trials may have led the subjects into searching for some spurious rule according to which reinforcement may be given, and would thus have distracted their focus from more logic-based solutions.

References

  • Agnetta B, Hare B, Tomasello M (2000) Cues to food locations that domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) of different ages do and do not use. Anim Cogn 3:107–112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aguirre G (1978) Retinal degeneration in the dog: rod dysplasia. Exp Eye Res 26:233–253

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Aust U, Huber L (2006) Does the use of natural stimuli facilitate amodal completion in pigeons? Perception 35:333–349

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Aust U, Apfalter W, Huber L (2005) Pigeon categorization: classification strategies in a non-linguistic species. In: Grialou IP, Longo G, Okada M (eds) Images and reasoning. interdisciplinary conference series on reasoning studies. Keio University Press, Tokyo, pp 183–204

    Google Scholar 

  • Behrend DA, Scofield J, Kleinknecht EE (2001) Beyond fast mapping: young children’s extensions of novel words and novel facts. Dev Psychol 37:698–705

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Beran MJ, Washburn DA (2002) Chimpanzee responding during conditional matching-to-sample: control by exclusion. J Exp Anal Behav 78:497–508

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Call J (2006) Inferences by exclusion in the great apes: the effect of age and species. Anim Cogn 9:393–403

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cerutti DT, Rumbaugh DM (1993) Stimulus relations in comparative primate perspective. Psychol Rec 43:811–821

    Google Scholar 

  • Clement TS, Zentall TR (2000) Stimulus relations in comparative primate perspective. Psychol Sci 11:261–264

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Clement TS, Zentall TR (2003) Choice based on exclusion in pigeons. Psychon Bull Rev 10:959–964

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Coile DC, Pollitz CH, Smith JC (1989) Behavioral determination of critical flicker fusion in dogs. Physiol Behav 45:1087–1092

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cumming WW, Berryman R (1961) Some data on matching behavior in the pigeon. J Exp Anal Behav 4:281–284

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • D’Amato MR, Colombo M (1989) Serial learning with wild card items by monkeys (Cebus apella): implications for knowledge of ordinal position. J Comp Psychol 103:252–261

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Delius JD, Jitsumori M, Siemann M (2000) Stimulus equivalencies through discrimination reversals. In: Heyes C, Huber L (eds) The evolution of cognition. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 103–122

    Google Scholar 

  • Dixon LS (1977) The nature of control by spoken words over visual stimulus selection. J Exp Anal Behav 27:433–442

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Erdöhegyi A, Topal J, Virányi Z, Miklosi à (2007) Dog-logic: inferential reasoning in a two-way choice task and its restricted use. Anim Behav 74:725–737

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferrari C, de Rose JC, McIlvane WJ (1993) Exclusion vs. selection training of auditory-visual conditional relations. J Exp Child Psychol 56:49–63

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Halberda J (2003) The development of a word-learning strategy. Cognition 87:B23–B34

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hashiya K, Kojima S (2001) Hearing and auditory–visual intermodal recognition in the chimpanzee. In: Matsuzawa T (ed) Primate origins of human cognition and behavior. Springer, Tokyo, pp 155–189

    Google Scholar 

  • Herman LM, Richards DG, Wolz JP (1984) Comprehension of sentences by bottlenosed dolphins. Cognition 16:129–219

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Horne PJ, Lowe CF (1996) On the origins of naming and other symbolic behavior. J Exp Anal Behav 65:185–241

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Huber L (2001) Visual categorization in pigeons. In: Cook RG (ed) Avian visual cognition [On-line]

  • Huber L, Aust U (2006) A modified feature theory as an account to pigeon visual categorization. In: Zentall TR, Wasserman E (eds) Comparative cognition: experimental explorations of animal intelligence. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 325–342

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaswal VK, Markman EM (2001) Learning proper and common names in inferential versus ostensive contexts. Child Dev 72:768–786

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kaminski J, Call J, Fischer J (2004) Word learning in a domestic dog: evidence for “fast mapping”. Science 304:1682–1683

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kastak CR, Schusterman RJ (2002) Sea lions and equivalence: expanding classes by exclusion. J Exp Anal Behav 78:449–465

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mackintosh NJ (2000) Abstraction and discrimination. In: Heyes C, Huber L (eds) The evolution of cognition. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 123–141

    Google Scholar 

  • Macphail EM (1987) The comparative psychology of intelligence. Behav Brain Sci 10:645–695

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markman EM, Wachtel GF (1988) Children’s use of mutual exclusivity to constrain the meanings of words. Cogn Psychol 20:121–157

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • McIlvane WJ, Kledaras JB, Munson LC, King KAJ, de Rose JC, Stoddard LT (1987) Controlling relations in conditional discrimination and matching by exclusion. J Exp Anal Behav 48:187–208

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Meehan EF (1995) Emergence by exclusion. Psychol Rec 45:133–154

    Google Scholar 

  • Mervis CB, Bertrand J (1994) Acquisition of the novel name—nameless category (n3c) principle. Child Dev 65:1646–1662

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Miklosi Ã, Polgardi R, Topal J, Csanyi V (1998) Use of experimenter-given cues in dogs. Anim Cogn 1:113–121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murphy CJ, Zadnik K, Mannis MJ (1992) Myopia and refractive error in dogs. Invest Ophtmol Vis Sci 33:2459–2463

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Neitz J, Geist T, Jacobs G (1989) Color vision in the dog. Visual Neurosci 3:119–125

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Odom JV, Bromberg NM, Dawson WW (1983) Canine visual acuity: retinal and cortical field potentials evoked by pattern stimulation. Am J Physiol 245:R637–R641

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Peichl L (1991) Catecholaminergic amacrine cells in the dog and wolf retina. Vis Neurosci 7:575–587

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Premack D (1995) Cause/induced motion; intention/spontaneous motion. In: Changeux JP, Chavaillon J (eds) Origins of the human brain. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 286–308

    Google Scholar 

  • Premack D, Premack AJ (1994) Levels of causal understanding in chimpanzees and children. Cognition 50:347–362

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Range F, Aust U, Steurer M, Huber L (2007) Visual categorization of natural stimuli by domestic dogs (Canis familiaris). Anim Cogn. doi:10.1007/s10071-007-0123-2

  • Riedel J, Buttelmann D Call J, Tomasello M (2006) Domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) use a physical marker to locate hidden food. Anim Cogn 9:27–35

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Savage-Rumbaugh ES (1986) Ape language: from conditioned response to symbol. Columbia University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Schusterman RJ, Krieger K (1984) California sea lions are capable of semantic comprehension. Psychol Rec 34:3–23

    Google Scholar 

  • Stromer R (1989) Symmetry of control by exclusion in humans’ arbitrary matching to sample. Psychol Rep 64:915–922

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Szetei V, Miklosi A, Topal J, Csanyi V (2003) When dogs seem to lose their nose: an investigation on the use of visual and olfactory cues in communicative context between dog and owner. Appl Anim Behav Sci 83:141–152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Terrace HS, Chen S, Newman AB (1995) Serial learning with a wild card by pigeons (Columba livia): effect of list length. J Comp Psychol 109:162–172

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Tomonaga M (1993) Tests for control by exclusion and negative stimulus relations of arbitrary matching to sample in a “symmetry-emergent” chimpanzee. J Exp Anal Behav 59:215–229

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Tomonaga M (1999) Establishing functional equivalence in a chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) with a two-item sequential-responding procedure. J Exp Anal Behav 72:57–79

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tomonaga M, Matsuzawa T (2000) Sequential responding to arabic numerals with wild cards by the chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes). Anim Cogn 3:1–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tomonaga M, Matsuzawa T, Fujita K, Yamamoto J (1991) Emergence of symmetry in a visual conditional discrimination by chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). Psychol Rep 68:51–60

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Vincent-Smith L, Bricker DD, Bricker W (1974) Acquisition of receptive vocabulary in the toddlerage child. Child Dev 45:189–193

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wilkinson KM, Dube WV, McIlvane WJ (1998) Fast mapping and exclusion (emergent matching) in developmental language behavior analysis and animal cognition research. Psychol Rec 48:407–422

    Google Scholar 

  • Zentall TR, Edwards CA, Moore BS, Hogan DE (1981) Identity: the basis for both matching and oddity learning. J Exp Psychol: Anim Behav Process 7:70–86

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The research was supported by the Austrian Science Foundation through Grant V3-B03 to Ulrike Aust and by the European Community’s Sixth Framework Programme under contract number: NEST 012929. Thanks are due to Wilfried Apfalter, Johanna Kramer, Katharina Kramer, and Michael Pollirer for their assistance in the pigeon laboratory, and to Karin Bayer and Stefanie Riemer for their help in carrying out the experiments with the dogs. We would also like to thank Christian Palmers for providing the facility for the dog experiments. Also, we wish to thank Julia Fischer for valuable comments and discussion. We declare that the experiments comply with the current Austrian laws.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department for Neurobiology and Cognition Research, University of Vienna, Althanstrasse 14, 1090, Vienna, Austria

    Ulrike Aust, Friederike Range, Michael Steurer & Ludwig Huber

Authors
  1. Ulrike Aust
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Friederike Range
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Michael Steurer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ludwig Huber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ulrike Aust.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

S1 (DOC 26 kb)

S2 (MOV 3598 kb)

S3 (MOV 3743 kb)

S4 (MOV 3969 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Aust, U., Range, F., Steurer, M. et al. Inferential reasoning by exclusion in pigeons, dogs, and humans. Anim Cogn 11, 587–597 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-008-0149-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-008-0149-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation