Animal Cognition

, 13:75 | Cite as

Pigeons can discriminate “good” and “bad” paintings by children

Original Paper

Abstract

Humans have the unique ability to create art, but non-human animals may be able to discriminate “good” art from “bad” art. In this study, I investigated whether pigeons could be trained to discriminate between paintings that had been judged by humans as either “bad” or “good”. To do this, adult human observers first classified several children’s paintings as either “good” (beautiful) or “bad” (ugly). Using operant conditioning procedures, pigeons were then reinforced for pecking at “good” paintings. After the pigeons learned the discrimination task, they were presented with novel pictures of both “good” and “bad” children’s paintings to test whether they had successfully learned to discriminate between these two stimulus categories. The results showed that pigeons could discriminate novel “good” and “bad” paintings. Then, to determine which cues the subjects used for the discrimination, I conducted tests of the stimuli when the paintings were of reduced size or grayscale. In addition, I tested their ability to discriminate when the painting stimuli were mosaic and partial occluded. The pigeons maintained discrimination performance when the paintings were reduced in size. However, discrimination performance decreased when stimuli were presented as grayscale images or when a mosaic effect was applied to the original stimuli in order to disrupt spatial frequency. Thus, the pigeons used both color and pattern cues for their discrimination. The partial occlusion did not disrupt the discriminative behavior suggesting that the pigeons did not attend to particular parts, namely upper, lower, left or right half, of the paintings. These results suggest that the pigeons are capable of learning the concept of a stimulus class that humans name “good” pictures. The second experiment showed that pigeons learned to discriminate watercolor paintings from pastel paintings. The subjects showed generalization to novel paintings. Then, as the first experiment, size reduction test, grayscale test, mosaic processing test and partial occlusion test were carried out. The results suggest that the pigeons used both color and pattern cues for the discrimination and show that non-human animals, such as pigeons, can be trained to discriminate abstract visual stimuli, such as pictures and may also have the ability to learn the concept of “beauty” as defined by humans.

Keywords

Concept Category Visual discrimination Aesthetics Visual art 

Supplementary material

10071_2009_246_MOESM1_ESM.ppt (5.7 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (PPT 5860 kb)

References

  1. Anderson JR, Kuwaharam H, Kuroshimma H, Leighty KA, Fujita K (2005) Are monkeys aesthetists? Rensch (1957) revisited. J Exp Psychol: animal Behav Proc 31:71–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aust U, Huber L (2001) The role of item- and category specific information in the discrimination of people versus nonpeople images by pigeons. Anim Learn Behav 29:107–119Google Scholar
  3. Berlyne DE (1969) The reward value of indifferent stimulation In Tapp, J.K (ed) Reinforcement and Behavior, 179-214. Academic Press (New York)Google Scholar
  4. Berlyne DE (1976) Aesthetics and psychobiology. Appleton, Century-Crofts (New York)Google Scholar
  5. Butler RA (1953) Discrimination by rhesus monkeys to visual exploration motivation. J Comp Physiol Psychol 50:177–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cellera J (1980) The pigeon’s analysis of picture. Pattern Recognit 12:1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cook RG (1992) The visual perception and processing of texture by pigeons. In: Honig WK, Fetterman JG (eds) Cognitive aspects of stimulus control. LEA, New Jersey, pp 279–299Google Scholar
  8. Covato KK, Cook RG (2001) Cognitive precedence for local information in hierarchical stimulus processing by pigeons. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Proc 27:3–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Draganiou TI, Nagle L, Kreutzer M (2002) Directional female preference for an exaggerated male trait in canary (Serinus canaria) song. Proc Roy Soc Lond B 269:2525–2531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fechner von GT (1876) Vorschule der Aesthetik Breitkopf & Hartel (Leipzig)Google Scholar
  11. Gibson BM, Lazarbera LF, Gosslin F, Schyns PG, Wasserman EA (2007) Non-accidental properties underlie shape recognition in mammalian and non-mammalian vision. Curr Biol 17:336–340CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Goto K, Lea SEG (2003) Discrimination of direction of movements in pigeons following previous experience of motion/static discrimination. J Exp Anal Behav 80:29–42CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Herrnstein RJ, Loveland DH (1964) Complex visual concept in the pigeon. Science 146:549–551CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Herrnstein RJ, WJr Vaughan, Mumford DB, Kosslyn SM (1989) Teaching pigeons on abstract rule: Insideness. Percept Psychophys 46:56–64PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Hollard VD, Delius JD (1982) Rotational invariance in visual pattern recognition by pigeons and humans. Science 218:804–806CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Lea SEG, Goto K, Osthaus B, Ryan ME (2006) The logic of the stimulus. Anim Cogn 9:247–256CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Lewis-Williams D (2002) The mind in the cave: consciousness and the origin of arts. Thames & Hudson, LondonGoogle Scholar
  18. McDermott J, Hauser MD (2007) Nonhuman primates prefer slow tempos but dislike music overall. Cognition 104:654–668CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Mpodozis J, Letelier JC, Concha ML, Maturana H (1995) Conduction velocity group in the retino-tectal and retino-thamamic visual pathways of the pigeon (Columba livia). Int J Neurosci 81:123–136CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Rensch B (1957) Asthetische Faktoren bei Farb- und Formbevorzugungen von Affen. Z Tierpsychol 14:71–99Google Scholar
  21. Solso RL (2003) The psychology of art and the evolution of the conscious brain. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  22. Uy JAC, Patricell GL, Borga G (2001) Complex mate searching in the satin bowerbird Pitlonorhynchus violence. Am Nat 158:530–542CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Voland E, Grammer K (eds) (2003) Evolutionary aesthetics. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  24. Wasserman EA, Kiedinger RE, Bhatt RS (1988) Conceptual behavior in pigeons: categories, subcategories, and pseudocategories. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Proc 14:235–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Watanabe S (1988) Failure of visual prototype learning in the pigeon. Anim Learn Behav 16:147–152Google Scholar
  26. Watanabe S (1991) Effects of ectostriatal lesions on natural concept, pseudo concept and artificial pattern discrimination in pigeons. Vis Neurosci 6:497–506CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Watanabe S (2001a) Discrimination of cartoon and photographs in pigeons: effects of scrambling of elements. Behav Proc 53:3–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Watanabe S (2001b) Van Gogh, Chagall and pigeons. Anim Cog 4:147–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Watanabe S, Nemoto M (1998) Reinforcing property of music in Java sparrows (Padda oryzivora). Behav Proc 43:211–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Watanabe S, Wakita M, Sakamoto J (1995) Discrimination of Monet and Picasso in pigeons. J Exp Anal Behav 63:165–174CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Zaidel DW (2006) Neuropsychology of art. Psychology Press, HoveGoogle Scholar
  32. Zeki S (1999) Inner vision: an exploration of art and the brain. Oxford University Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  33. Zeller A (2007) “What’s in a picture?” A comparison of drawings by ape and children. Semiotica 166:181–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyKeio UniversityTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations