Animal Cognition

, Volume 12, Issue 1, pp 127–144 | Cite as

Visually guided capture of a moving stimulus by the pigeon (Columba livia)

Original Paper
First Online:
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:

Abstract

Although the pigeon is a popular model for studying visual perception, relatively little is known about its perception of motion. Three experiments examined the pigeons’ ability to capture a moving stimulus. In Experiment 1, the effect of manipulating stimulus speed and the length of the stimulus was examined using a simple rightward linear motion. This revealed a clear effect of length on capture and speed on errors. Errors were mostly anticipatory and there appeared to be two processes contributing to response locations: anticipatory peck bias and lag time. Using the same birds as Experiment 1, Experiment 2 assessed transfer of tracking and capture to novel linear motions. The birds were able to capture other motion directions, but they displayed a strong rightward peck bias, indicating that they had learned to peck to the right of the stimulus in Experiment 1. Experiment 3 used the same task as Experiment 2 but with naïve birds. These birds did not show the rightward bias in pecking and instead pecked more evenly around the stimulus. The combined results indicate that the pigeon can engage in anticipatory tracking and capture of a moving stimulus, and that motion properties and training experience influence capture.

Keywords

Motion perception Visual perception Visual cognition Pigeon 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was supported in part by an Innovation and Research Pump Priming Fund grant from the University of York. The authors would like to thank Richard Wood and Stuart Morley for technical support and animal care. The results presented in this article formed part of a PhD dissertation completed by Anna Wilkinson. She is currently at the University of Vienna. Kimberly Kirkpatrick has moved to Kansas State University. The research contained within this article was conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, United Kingdom.

References

  1. Aust U, Huber L (2006) Does the use of natural stimuli facilitate amodal completion in pigeons? Perception 35:333–349PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brouwer A, Lopez-Moliner J, Brenner E, Smeets JBJ (2006) Determining whether a ball will land behind or in front of you: not just a combination of expansion and angular velocity. Vis Res 46:382–391PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Burger J, Gochfield M, Murray BG (1992) Risk discrimination of eye contact and directness of approach in black iguanas (Ctenosaura similis). J Comp Psychol 106:97–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Byers JA (2002) The ungulate mind. In: Bekoff M, Allen C, Burghardt GM (eds) The cognitive animal: empirical and theoretical perspectives on animal cognition. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 35–39Google Scholar
  5. Chapman S (1968) Catching a baseball. Am J Phys 36:868–870CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cook RG (2001) Avian visual cognition. Comparative Cognition Press, Medford. http://www.pigeon.psy.tufts.edu/avc/
  7. Dittrich WH, Lea SEG (1993) Motion as a natural category for pigeons: generalization and a feature-positive effect. J Exp Anal Behav 59:115–129PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dittrich WH, Lea SEG (2001) Motion discrimination and recognition. In: Cook RG (ed) Avian visual cognition. Comparative Cognition Press, Medford. http://www.pigeon.psy.tufts.edu/avc/dittrich/
  9. Fagot J (2000) Picture perception in animals. Psychology Press, HoveGoogle Scholar
  10. Hedenström A, Rosén M (2001) Predator versus prey: on aerial hunting and escape strategies in birds. Behav Ecol 12:150–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hendricks J (1966) Flicker thresholds as determined by a modified conditioned suppression procedure. J Exp Anal Behav 9:501–506PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hodos W, Smith L, Bonbright JC (1976) Detection of the velocity of movement of visual stimuli by pigeons. J Exp Anal Behav 25:143–156PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kirkpatrick K, Wilkinson A, Johnston S (2007) Pigeons discriminate continuous versus discontinuous line segments. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 33:273–286PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lanchester BS, Mark RF (1975) Pursuit and prediction in tracking of moving food by a teleost fish (Acanthaluteres spilomelanurus). J Exp Biol 63:627–645PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Lea SEG, Dittrich WH (2000) What do birds see in moving video images? In: Fagot J (ed) Picture perception in animals. Psychology Press, Hove, pp 143–180Google Scholar
  16. Manns M, Freund N, Patzke N, Güntürkün O (2007) Organization of telencephalotectal projections in pigeons: Impact for lateralized top-down control. Neuroscience 144:645–653PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Marken RS (2005) Optical trajectories and the informational basis of fly ball catching. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 31:630–634PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. McBeath MK, Dienes Z (1996) Do fiekders know where to go to catch the ball or only how to get there? J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 22:531–543CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. McBeath MK, Shaffer DM, Kaiser MK (1995) How baseball outfielders determine where to run to catch fly balls. Science 268:569–573PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. McLeod P, Reed N, Dienes Z (2002) The optic trajectory is not a lot of use if you want to catch the ball. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 28:1499–1501PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. McVean A, Davieson R (1989) Ability of the pigeon (Columba livia) to intercept moving targets. J Comp Psychol 103:95–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Neiworth JJ, Rilling ME (1987) A method for studying imagery in animals. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 13:203–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pisacreta R (1982) Stimulus control of the pigeons ability to peck a moving target. J Exp Anal Behav 37:301–309PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Rilling ME (1992) An ecological approach to stimulus control and tracking. In: Honig WK, Fetterman JG (eds) Cognitive aspects of stimulus control. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale NJ, pp 347–366Google Scholar
  25. Rilling ME, LaClaire L, Warner M (1993) A comparative, hierarchical theory for object recognition and action. In: Zentall TR (ed) Animal cognition: a tribute to Donald A. Riley. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, pp 313–333Google Scholar
  26. Rilling ME, LaClaire TL (1989) Visually guided catching and tracking skills in pigeons: a preliminary analysis. J Exp Anal Behav 52:377–385PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ristau CA (1991a) Aspects of the cognitive ethology of an injury-feigning bird, the piping plover. In: Ristau CA (ed) Cognitive ethology: the minds of other animals. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, pp 91–126Google Scholar
  28. Ristau CA (1991b) Before mind reading: attention purposes and deception in birds? In: Whiten A (ed) Natural theories of mind: evolution, development, and simulation of everyday mindreading. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 209–222Google Scholar
  29. Sanderson FH, Whiting HTA (1974) Dynamic visual acuity and performance in a catching task. J Motor Behav 6:87–94Google Scholar
  30. Shaffer DM, Krauchunas SM, Eddy M, McBeath MK (2004) How dogs navigate to catch frisbees. Psychol Sci 15:437–441PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Shaffer DM, McBeath MK, Roy WL, Krauchunas SM (2003) A linear optical trajectory informs the fielder where to run to the side to catch fly balls. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 29:1244–1250PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sharpe RH, Whiting HTA (1974) Exposure and occluded duration effects in a ball-catching skill. J Mot Behav 6:139–147Google Scholar
  33. Siegel RK (1970) Apparent movement detection in the pigeon. J Exp Anal Behav 14:93–97PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Siegel RK, Honig WK (1970) Pigeon concept formation: successive and simultaneous acquisition. J Exp Anal Behav 13:385–390PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. van der Kamp J, Savelsbergh G (2000) Action and perception in infancy. Inf Behav Dev 23:237–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. von Hofsten C (1977) Binocular convergence as a determinant of reaching behaviour in infancy. Perception 6:139–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. von Hofsten C (1983) Catching skills in infancy. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 9:75–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. von Hofsten C, Feng Q, Spelke ES (2000) Object representation and predictive action in infancy. Dev Sci 3:192–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. von Hofsten C, Lindhagen K (1979) Observations on the development of reaching for moving objects. J Exp Child Psychol 28:158–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. von Hofsten C, Vishton P, Spelke ES, Feng Q, Rosander K (1998) Predictive action in infancy: tracking and reaching for moving objects. Cognition 67:255–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Whiting HTA (1969) Acquiring ball skill. G Bell & Sons, LondonGoogle Scholar
  42. Whiting HTA, Gill EB, Stephenson JM (1970) Critical time intervals for taking in flight information in a ball-catching task. Ergonomics 13:265–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Whiting HTA, Sharp RH (1974) Visual occlusion factors in a discrete ball-catching task. J Mot Behav 6:11–16Google Scholar
  44. Yamakazi Y, Aust U, Huber L, Hausmann M, Güntürkün O (2006) Lateralised cognition: asymmetrical and complementary strategies of pigeons during discrimination of the “human concept”. Cognition 104:314–344Google Scholar
  45. Young ME, Beckmann JS, Wasserman EA (2006) The pigeon’s perception of Michotte’s launching effect. J Exp Anal Behav 86:223–237PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Zeigler HP (1974) Feeding behaviour in the pigeon: a neurobehavioural analysis. In: Goodman IJ, Stein NW (eds) Birds, brain, and behaviour. Academic Press, New York, pp 101–132Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of YorkYorkUK
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyKansas State UniversityManhattanUSA

Personalised recommendations