Animal Cognition

, Volume 11, Issue 4, pp 569–585 | Cite as

The use of perceptual features in categorization by orangutans (Pongo abelli)

Original Paper

Abstract

The extent to which categorization of natural classes in animals reflects a generalization based on perceptual similarity versus an abstract conceptual representation remains unclear. Here, two experiments were conducted to identify the perceptual features used by orangutans when categorizing pictures. In Experiment 1, subjects were trained and tested for transfer on a concrete discrimination (gorillas or orangutans vs. other primates). Analysis of performance on both positive and negative exemplars revealed that performance was best on photos with faces, particularly close-ups. Moreover, error trials did not seem to reflect instances of mistaken identity, but rather, exemplars that may have been distracting for other reasons, such as novel coloration or morphology. In Experiment 2, photos were modified to test the effects of various features. Color modifications caused the biggest decrease in performance, and eye modifications also affected performance deleteriously. Therefore, two perceptual features, namely eye regions and color, played a key role in subjects’ ability to categorize. However, performance based on an underlying concept cannot be ruled out, because both of these features are highly relevant in terms of defining category membership. Although a subset of features was identified as playing a key role in categorization, these features differed depending on whether feature-use was studied indirectly, as in Experiment 1, or directly, as in Experiment 2.

Keywords

Categorization Concepts Perceptual features 

Supplementary material

10071_2008_148_MOESM1_ESM.doc (1.6 mb)
S1. Samples of photo modifications used in Experiment 2 (DOC 1.55 Mb)

References

  1. Astley SL, Wasserman EA (1999) Superordinate category formation in pigeons: association with a common delay or probability of food reinforcement makes perceptually dissimilar stimuli functionally equivalent. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 25:415–432PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bhatt RS, Wasserman EA, Reynolds WF, Knauss KS (1988) Conceptual behaviour in pigeons: categorization of both familiar and novel examples from four classes of natural and artificial stimuli. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 14:219–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brown DA, Boysen ST (2000) Spontaneous discrimination of natural stimuli by chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). J Comp Psychol 114:392–400PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Delorme A, Richard G, Fabre-Thorpe M (2000) Ultra-rapid categorisation of natural scenes does not rely on colour cues: a study in monkeys and humans. Vision Res 40:2187–2200PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. D’Amato MR, Van Sant P (1988) The person concept in monkeys (Cebus paella). J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 14:43–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Eimas PD, Quinn PC (1994) Studies on the formation of perceptually based basic-level categories in young infants. Child Dev 65:903–917PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ghosh N, Lea SEG, Noury M (2004) Transfer to intermediate forms following concept discrimination by pigeons: chimeras and morphs. J Exp Anal Behav 82:125–141PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gibson BM, Wasserman EA, Gosselin F, Schyns PG (2005) Applying bubbles to localize features that control pigeons’ visual discrimination behaviour. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 31:376–382PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gosselin F, Schyns PG (2001) Bubbles: a technique to reveal the use of information in recognition tasks. Vision Res 41:2261–2271PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Greene SL (1983) Feature memorization in pigeon concept formation. In: Commons ML, Herrnstein RJ, Wagner AR (eds) Quantitative analyses of behavior: discrimination processes. Ballinger, Cambridge, pp 209–229Google Scholar
  11. Herrnstein RJ, de Villiers PA (1980) Fish as a natural category for people and pigeons. In: Bower GH (ed) The psychology of learning and motivation, vol 14. Academic Press, New York, pp 59–95Google Scholar
  12. Herrnstein RJ, Loveland DH (1964) Complex visual concept in the pigeon. Science 146:549–551PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Herrnstein RJ, Loveland DH, Cable C (1976) Natural concepts in pigeons. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 2:285–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Huber L, Troje NF, Loidolt M, Aust U, Grass D (2000) Natural categorization through multiple feature learning in pigeons. Q J Exp Psychol 4:341–357Google Scholar
  15. Jitsumori M (1993) Category discrimination of artificial polymorphous stimuli based on feature learning. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 19:244–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jitsumori M, Matsuzawa T (1991) Picture perception in monkeys and pigeons: transfer of rightside-up versus upside-down discrimination of photographic objects across conceptual categories. Primates 32:473–482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jitsumori M, Yoshihara M (1997) Categorical discrimination of human facial expressions by pigeons: a test of the linear feature model. Q J Exp Psychol 3:253–268Google Scholar
  18. Jitsumori M, Delius JD (2001) Object recognition and object categorization in animals. In: Matsuzawa T (ed) Primate origins of human cognition and behaviour. Springer, New York, pp 269–92Google Scholar
  19. Kyes RC, Candland DK (1987) Baboon (Papio hamadryas) visual preferences for regions of the face. J Comp Psychol 101:345–348PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lea SEG, Harrison SN (1978) Discrimination of polymorphous stimulus sets by pigeons. Q J Exp Psychol 30:521–537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Martin-Malivel J, Fagot J (2001) Perception of pictorial human faces by baboons: effects of stimulus orientation on discrimination performance. Anim Learn Behav 29:10–20Google Scholar
  22. Martin-Malivel J, Mangini MC, Fagot J, Biederman I (2006) Do humans and baboons use the same information when categorizing human and baboon faces? Psychol Sci 17:599–607PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Parr LA, de Waal (1999) Visual kin recognition in chimpanzees. Nature 399:647–648PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Parr LA, Winslow JT, Hopkins WD, de Waal FBM (2000) Recognizing facial cues: Individual discrimination by chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta). J Comp Psychol 114:47–60PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Quinn PC, Eimas PM (1996) Perceptual cues that permit categorical differentiation of animal species by infants. J Exp Child Psychol 63:189–211PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Roberts WA, Mazmanian DS (1988) Concept learning at different levels of abstraction by pigeons, monkeys, and people. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 14:247–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ryan CM (1982) Concept formation and individual recognition in the domestic chicken (Gallus gallus). Behav Anal Lett 2:213–220Google Scholar
  28. Schrier AM, Angarella R, Povar ML (1984) Studies of concept formation by stumptailed monkeys: concepts humans, monkeys, and letter A. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 10:564–584CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Schrier AM, Brady PM (1987) Categorization of natural stimuli by monkeys (Macaca mulatta): effects of stimulus set size and modification of exemplars. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 13:136–143PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Spencer J, Quinn PC, Johnson MH, Karmiloff-Smith A (1997) Heads you win, tails you lose: Evidence for young infants categorizing mammals by head and facial attributes. Early Dev Parent 6:113–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Tanaka M (2001) Discrimination and categorization of photographs of natural objects by chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). Anim Cogn 4:201–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Vogels R (1999) Categorization of complex visual images by rhesus monkeys. Part 1: behavioural study. Eur J Neurosci 11:1223–1238PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Vokey JR, Rendall D, Tangen JM, Parr LA, de Waal FBM (2004) Visual kin recognition and family resemblance in chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). J Comp Psychol 118:194–199PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Vonk J, MacDonald SE (2002) Natural concepts in a juvenile gorilla (Gorilla, gorilla gorilla) at three levels of abstraction. J Exp Anal Behav 78:315–329PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Vonk J, MacDonald SE (2004) Levels of abstraction in orangutan (Pongo abelli) categorization. J Comp Psychol 118:3–13PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wasserman EA, Kiedinger RE, Bhatt RS (1988) Conceptual behaviour in pigeons: Categories, subcategories, and pseudocategories. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 14:235–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyYork UniversityTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations