Piagetian object permanence and its development in Eurasian jays (Garrulus glandarius)
- 755 Downloads
Object permanence in Eurasian jays (Garrulus glandarius) was investigated using a complete version of the Uzgiris and Hunt scale 1. Nine hand-raised jays were studied, divided into two groups according to their different developmental stages (experiment 1, older jays: 2–3 months old, n = 4; experiment 2, younger jays: 15 days old, n = 5). In the first experiment, we investigated whether older jays could achieve piagetian stage 6 of object permanence. Tasks were administered in a fixed sequence (1–15) according to the protocols used in other avian species. The aim of the second experiment was to check whether testing very young jays before their development of “neophobia” could influence the achievement times of piagetian stages. Furthermore, in this experiment tasks were administered randomly to investigate whether the jays’ achievement of stage 6 follows a fixed sequence related to the development of specific cognitive abilities. All jays tested in experiments 1 and 2 fully achieved piagetian stage 6 and no “A not B” errors were observed. Performance on visible displacement tasks was better than performance on invisible ones. The results of experiment 2 show that “neophobia” affected the response of jays in terms of achievement times; the older jays in experiment 1 took longer to pass all the tasks when compared with the younger, less neophobic, jays in experiment 2. With regard to the achieving order, jays followed a fixed sequence of acquisition in experiment 2, even if tasks were administered randomly, with the exception of one subject. The results of these experiments support the idea that piagetian stages of cognitive development exist in avian species and that they progress through relatively fixed sequences.
KeywordsObject permanence Piaget Bird Corvid Jay
We would like to thank Dr. Marco Stebel—CSPA Animal House Manager, University of Trieste, Italy; Paolo Tarabocchia—Cartoonist, Trieste, Italy; Dr. Thomas Bugnyar, Konrad Lorenz Research Station Grünau and Department of Theoretical Biology, University of Vienna, Austria; Prof. Bernd Heinrich, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT, USA and the local section of the National Society for the Protection of Animals (E.N.P.A. Trieste, Italy) for the help and assistance they gave us. This research complies with the Italian laws on animal research and welfare. The research was supported by Grants MIUR Cofin 2004, 2004070353_002 “Intel-lat” and MIPAF “Ben-o-lat” via Department of Zootecnical Sciences, University of Sassari to G.V.
Experiment 2, younger jays, task 5—search for simply hidden objects, two sites, visible.
Experiment 1, older jays, task 9—search following an invisible displacement, superimposed covers. Birds tried to reach the object as soon as possible by removing more than one screen at the same time. The displacement of the covers was improved using adhesive tape to fix the first and smallest cover onto the bottom of the “cake box”.
Experiment 1, older jays, task 13, search following an invisible displacement, complex complete hiding, invisible.
Experiment 1, older jays, task 14, search following successive invisible displacement, three sites, invisible. The object was visibly placed in the palm of the experimenter’s hand, which was then closed. The hand passed behind two screens (closed) and the object was placed behind the last screen. Then, the experimenter showed his empty hand to the bird.
Experiment 1, older jays, task 15, search following successive invisible displacement. One mealworm was already hidden under the first screen (left side) before beginning the test. Then, a second mealworm was visibly placed in the palm of the experimenter’s hand, which was then closed. The hand passed behind two screens (closed) but the second object was placed inside a glove that the experimenter was wearing on his hand without being seen by the bird. The bird was led to believe that the mealworm was under the third screen (right side). Successful criterion: the jay searched systematically in reverse order, i.e. final screen, second screen and first screen.
Experiment 2, younger jays, Shell game. The experimenter visibly hides an object behind one screen and then the position of the screen is visibly exchanged with one of the other two screens.
- Birkhead TR (1991) The magpies: the ecology and behaviour of black-billed and yellow magpies. Poyser, LondonGoogle Scholar
- Bossema I (1979) Jays and Oaks: an eco-ethological study of a symbiosis. Behaviour 70:1–17Google Scholar
- Chettleburgh MR (1952) Observation on the collection and burial of acorns by Jays in Hainault forest. Br Birds 45:359–364Google Scholar
- Clayton NS, Krebs JR (1994) One-trial associative memory: comparison of food-storing and non-storing species of birds. Anim Learn Behav 22:366–372Google Scholar
- Clayton NS, Mellor R, Jackson A (1996) Seasonal patterns of food storing in the European jay (Garrulus glandarius) Ibis 138:250–255Google Scholar
- Doré FY, Fiset S, Goulet S, Dumas M-C, Gagnon S (1996) Search behavior in cats and dogs: interspecific differences in working memory and spatial cognition. Anim Learn Behav 24:142–149Google Scholar
- Emery NJ (2004) Are corvids ‘feathered apes’? Cognitive evolution in crows, jays, rooks and jackdaws. In: Watanabe S (ed) Comparative analysis of minds. Keio University Press, Tokyo, pp 181–213Google Scholar
- Emery NJ, Clayton NS (2004a) Comparing the complex cognition of Birds and Primates. In: Rogers LJ, Kaplan G (eds) Comparative vertebrate cognition: are primates superior to non-primates? Kluwer Academic/Plenum, New York, pp 3–46Google Scholar
- Funk MS (1996) Development of object permanence in the New Zealand parakeet (Cyanoramphus auriceps). Anim Learn Behav 21:749–761Google Scholar
- Gagnon S, Doré FY (1993) Search behaviour of dogs (Canis familiaris) in invisible displacement problems. Anim Learn Behav 21:246–254Google Scholar
- Heinrich B (1999) Mind of the raven. Harper Collins, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Heinrich B, Marzluff JM, Adams W (1995) Fear and food recognition in naive common ravens. Auk 112: 499–503Google Scholar
- Jarvis ED, Güntürkün O, Bruce L, Csillag A, Karten H, Kuenzel W, Medina L, Paxinos G, Perkel DJ, Shimizu T, Striedter G, Wild JM, Ball GF, Dugas-Ford J, Durand SE, Hough GE, Husband S, Kubikova L, Lee DW, Mello CV, Powers A, Siang C, Smulders TV, Wada K, White SA, Yamamoto K, Yu J, Reiner A, Butler AV (2005) Avian brains and a new understanding of vertebrate evolution. The Avian Brain Nomenclature Consortium. Nat Rev Neurosci 6:151–159PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Kaplan G, Rogers LJ (2001) Birds: their habits and skills. Allen & Unwin, St. Leonards, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
- Keve A (1995) Der Eichelhäher: Garrulus glandarius. Westarp Wissenschaften, Magdeburg, GermanyGoogle Scholar
- King AS, McLelland J (1984) Birds: their structure and function. Bailliere Tindall, London, pp 310–311Google Scholar
- Madge S, Burn H (1999) Crows and jays—a guide to the crows, jays and magpies of the World. Christopher Helm, London, pp 95–97Google Scholar
- Pepperberg IM, Funk MS (1990) Object permanence in four species of psittacine birds: An African grey parrot (Psittacus erithacus), an Illiger mini macaw (Ara maracana), a parakeet (Melopsittacus undulatus) and a cockatiel (Nymphicus hollandicus). Anim Learn Behav 18:97–108Google Scholar
- Pepperberg IM, Kozak FA (1986) Object permanence in the African grey parrot (Psittacus erithacus). Anim Learn Behav 14:322–330Google Scholar
- Piaget J (1952) The origins of intelligence in children. International Universities Press, New York (Original work published in 1936)Google Scholar
- Piaget J (1954) The construction of reality in the Child. International Universities Press, New York (Original work published in 1937)Google Scholar
- Reiner A, Perkel DJ, Bruce LL, Butler AB, Csillag AS, Kuenzel W, Medina L, Paxinos G, Shimitzu T, Striedter G, Wild M, Ball GF, Durand S, Güntürkün O, Lee DW, Mello CV, Powers A, White SA, Hough G, Kubikova L, Smulders TV, Wada K, Dugas-Ford J, Husband S, Yamamoto K, Yu J, Siang C, Jarvis ED (2004) Revised nomenclature for avian telencephalon and some related brainstem nuclei. J Comp Neurol 473:377–414PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Rogers LJ (1997) Minds of their own. Allen & Unwin, St. Leonards, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
- Savage C (1995) Bird brains: The intelligence of crows, ravens, magpies and jays. Sierra Club Book, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
- Shettleworth SJ (1995) Comparative studies of memory in food storing birds: from the field to the Skinner box. In: Alleva E, Fasolo A, Lipp HP, Nadel L and Ricceri L (eds) Behavioural brain research in naturalistic and semi-naturalistic settings. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp 159–192Google Scholar
- Sophian C (1985) Understanding the movement of objects: early developments in spatial cognition. Br J Dev Psychol 3:321–333Google Scholar
- Tomasello M, Call J (1997) Primate cognition. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Triana E, Pasnak R (1981) Object permanence in cats and dogs. Anim Learn Behav 9:135–139Google Scholar
- Uzgiris IC, Hunt J (1975) Assessment in infancy: ordinal scales of psychological development. University of Illinois Press, ChampaignGoogle Scholar
- Vallortigara G (2004) Visual cognition and representation in birds and primates. In: Rogers LJ, Kaplan G (eds) Vertebrate comparative cognition: are primates superior to non-primates? Kluwer Academic/Plenum, New York, pp 57–94Google Scholar
- Vallortigara G (2006) The cognitive chicken: visual and spatial cognition in a non-mammalian brain. In: Wasserman EA, Zentall TR (eds) Comparative cognition: experimental explorations of animal intelligence. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, pp 41–58Google Scholar
- Vauclair J (1996) Animal cognition: an introduction to modern comparative psychology. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
- Wilmore SB (1977) Crows, jays, ravens and their relatives. David and Charles, London, pp 22–54Google Scholar
- Wynne CDL (2001) Other ways of seeing the world—II: abstract dimensions. In: Wynne CDL (ed) Animal cognition, the mental lives of animals. Palgrave, Norfolk, UK, pp 82–87Google Scholar
- Wood S, Moriarty KM, Gardner BT, Gardner RA (1980) Object permanence in child and chimpanzee. Anim Learn Behav 8:3–9Google Scholar