Abstract
To recognize that a picture is a representation of a real-life object is a cognitively demanding task. It requires an organism to mentally represent the concrete object (the picture) and abstract its relation to the item that it represents. This form of representational insight has been shown in a small number of mammal and bird species. However, it has not previously been studied in reptiles. This study examined picture–object recognition in the red-footed tortoise (Chelonoidis carbonaria). In Experiment 1, five red-footed tortoises were trained to distinguish between food and non-food objects using a two-alternative forced choice procedure. After reaching criterion, they were presented with test trials in which the real objects were replaced with color photographs of those objects. There was no difference in performance between training and test trials, suggesting that the tortoises did see some correspondence between the real object and its photographic representation. Experiment 2 examined the nature of this correspondence by presenting the tortoises with a choice between the real food object and a photograph of it. The findings revealed that the tortoises confused the photograph with the real-life object. This suggests that they process real items and photographic representations of these items in the same way and, in this context, do not exhibit representational insight.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Aust U, Huber L (2006) Picture-object recognition in pigeons: evidence of representational insight in a visual categorization task using a complementary information procedure. J Exper Psychol Anim Behav Proc 32:190–195
Aust U, Huber L (2010) Representational insight in pigeons: comparing subjects with and without real-life experience. Anim Cogn 13:207–218. doi:10.1007/s10071-009-0258-4
Bovet D, Vauclair J (2000) Picture recognition in animals and humans. Behav Brain Res 109:143–165
Burghardt GM (1977) Learning processes in reptiles. In: Gans C, Tinkle DW (eds) Biology of the reptilia. Academic Press, London, pp 555–681
Carpenter CC, Badham JA, Kimble B (1970) Behavior patterns of three species of Amphibolurus (Agamidae). Copeia 1970:497–505
Dasser V (1987) Slides of group members as representations of the real animals (Macaca fascicularis). Ethology 76:65–73
Davis KM, Burghardt GM (2007) Training and long-term memory of a novel food 443 acquisition task in a turtle (Pseudemys nelsoni). Behav Proc 27:225–230
Davis KM, Burghardt GM (2012) Long-term retention of visual tasks by two species of emydid turtles, Pseudemys nelsoni and Trachemys scripta. J Comp Psychol. doi:10.1037/a0027827
Delius JD, Emmerton J, Hörster W, Jäger R, Ostheim J (2000) Picture-object recognition in pigeons. In: Fagot J (ed) Picture perception in animals. Psychology Press, England, pp 1–36
DeLoache JS (2004) Becoming symbol-minded. Trends Cog Sci 8:66–70. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2003.12.004
Fagot J, Martin-Malivel J, Dépy D (2000) What is the evidence for an equivalence between objects and pictures in birds and non-human primates? In: Fagot J (ed) Picture perception in animals. Psychology Press, England, pp 295–320
Fagot J, Thompson RKR, Parron C (2010) How to read a picture: lessons from nonhuman primates. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA 107:519–520
Hansknecht KA, Burghardt GM (2010) Stimulus control of lingual predatory luring and related foraging tactics of mangrove saltmarsh snakes (Nerodia clarkii comPressicauda). J Comp Psychol 124:159–165
Huber L (2010) Categories and concepts: language-related competences in non-linguistic species. In: Breed MD, Moore J (eds) Encyclopedia of animal behavior. Academic Press, Oxford, pp 261–266
Huber L, Aust U (2011) A modified feature theory as an account of pigeon visual categorization. In: Zentall TR, Wasserman EA (eds) The Oxford handbook of comparative cognition. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 497–512
Kendrick KM, Atkins K, Hinton MR, Heavens P, Keverne B (1996) Are faces special for sheep? Evidence from facial and object discrimination learning tests showing effects of inversion and social familiarity. Behav Proc 38:19–35
Lea SEG, Dittrich WH (2000) What do birds see in moving video images? In: Fagot J (ed) Picture perception in animals. Psychology Press, England, pp 143–180
Macedonia JM, Evans CS, Losos JB (1994) Male Anoli discriminate video-recorded conspecific and heterospecific displays. Anim Behav 47:1220–1223
Macphail EM (1982) Brain and intelligence in vertebrates. Clarendon Press, Oxford
Moskovits DK (1985) The behavior and ecology of two Amazonian tortoises, Geochelone carbonaria and Geochelone denticulata, in northwestern Brazil. Ph.D. thesis, University of Chicago, Chicago
Mueller-Paul J, Wilkinson A, Hall G, Huber L (2012) Radial-arm maze navigation of the red-footed tortoises (Geochelone carbonaria). J Comp Psychol. doi:10.1037/a0026881
Neumeyer C (1998) Color vision in lower vertebrates. In: Backhaus WGK, Kliegl R, Werner JS (eds) Color vision: perspectives from different disciplines. de Gruyter, Berlin
Ord TJ, Evans CS (2002) Interactive video playback and opponent assessment in lizards. Behav Proc 59:55–65
Ord TJ, Peters RA, Evans CS, Taylor AJ (2002) Digital video playback and visual communication in lizards. Anim Behav 63:879–890
Parron C, Call J, Fagot J (2008) Behavioural responses to photographs by pictorially naïve baboons (PaPio anubis), gorillas (Gorilla gorilla) and chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). Behav Proc 78:351–357
Strong JN, Fragoso JMV (2006) Seed dispersal by Geochelone carbonaria and Geochelone denticulate in Northwestern Brazil. Biotropica 38:683–686
Van Dyk DA, Evans CS (2008) Opponent assessment in lizards: examining the effect of aggressive and submissive signals. Behav Ecol. doi:10.1093/beheco/arn052
Watanabe S (2000) How do pigeons see pictures? Recognition of the real world from its 2D perspective. In: Fagot J (ed) Picture perception in animals. Psychology Press, England, pp 71–90
Weisman RG, Spetch ML (2010) Determining when birds perceive correspondence between pictures and objects: a critique. Comp Cogn Behav Rev 5:117–131. doi:10.3819/ccbr.2010.50006
Wilkinson A, Chan HM, Hall G (2007) A study of spatial learning and memory in the tortoise (Geochelone carbonaria). J Comp Psychol 121:412–418
Wilkinson A, Coward S, Hall G (2009) Visual and response-based navigation in the tortoise (Geochelone carbonaria). Anim Cogn 12:779–787
Wilkinson A, Kuenstner K, Mueller J, Huber L (2010a) Social learning in a non-social reptile. Biol Lett 6:614–616. doi:10.1098/rsbl.2010.0092
Wilkinson A, Mandl I, Bugnyar T, Huber L (2010b) Gaze following in the red-footed tortoise (Geochelone carbonaria). Anim Cogn 13:765–769. doi:10.1007/s10071-010-0320-2
Wilkinson A, Specht HL, Huber L (2010c) Pigeons can discriminate group mates from strangers using the concept of familiarity. Anim Behav 80:109–115. doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2010.04.006
Williams EE, Rand AS (1977) Species recognition dewlap function and faunal size. Am Zool 17:261–270
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the cold-blooded cognition group at the University of Vienna and the University of Lincoln for their helpful comments. We particularly thank Karin Kuenstner for help in running part of the experiment. We are also indebted to Wolfgang Berger for making the setup and Michael Pollirer for providing the experimental arena. This work was supported by funding from the Austrian Science Fund (to L.H.) contract number P19574.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Declaration
The experiments comply with the current laws of Austria.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Wilkinson, A., Mueller-Paul, J. & Huber, L. Picture–object recognition in the tortoise Chelonoidis carbonaria . Anim Cogn 16, 99–107 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-012-0555-1
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-012-0555-1