Animal Cognition

, Volume 13, Issue 6, pp 835–848 | Cite as

Identity concept learning in matching-to-sample tasks by tufted capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella)

  • Valentina Truppa
  • Duilio Garofoli
  • Giulia Castorina
  • Eva Piano Mortari
  • Francesco Natale
  • Elisabetta Visalberghi
Original Paper

Abstract

The abstract concept of equivalence is considered one of the bases of higher-order cognition, and it has been the subject of considerable research in comparative cognition. This study examined the conditions under which tufted capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella) are able to acquire an identity concept. Six capuchin monkeys were trained to solve a visual matching-to-sample (MTS) task on the basis of perceptual identity. The acquisition of the identity rule was inferred from the subject’s ability to solve transfer tests with novel stimuli. We evaluated the ability of the capuchin monkeys to match the shape of novel stimuli after training with both several small stimulus sets (Experiment 1) and a large stimulus set (Experiment 2). Moreover, we examined the ability of capuchins to transfer the concept to novel visual dimensions, such as colour and size and to transfer to novel spatial arrangements of the stimuli (Experiment 2). We demonstrated that the ability of capuchins to match novel stimuli was improved by increasing the number of stimuli used during training (Experiments 1 and 2) and that after a widely applicable identity concept based on the stimulus shape was acquired, the capuchins were able to match stimuli according to an identity rule based on both the colour and size of the stimuli and when the spatial arrangement of the stimuli was varied (Experiment 2). This study is the first to demonstrate that the size of the training set affects the acquisition of an abstract identity concept in an MTS task in non-human primates.

Keywords

Identity concept Relational learning Perceptual similarity Matching-to-sample Monkeys Cebus apella 

References

  1. Barros RS, Galvão OF, McIlvane WJ (2002) Generalized identity matching-to-sample in Cebus apella. Psychol Rec 52:441–460Google Scholar
  2. Bodily KD, Katz JS, Wright AA (2008) Matching-to-sample abstract-concept learning by pigeons. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 34:178–184CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Bovet D, Vauclair J (1998) Functional categorization of objects and of their pictures in baboons (Papio anubis). Learn Motiv 29:309–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bovet D, Vauclair J (2001) Judgment of conceptual identity in monkeys. Psychon Bull Rev 8:470–475PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Carter DE, Werner JT (1978) Complex learning and information processing in pigeons: A critical analysis. J Exp Anal Behav 29:565–601CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Cook RG, Wasserman EA (2006) Relational discrimination learning in pigeons. In: Wasserman EA, Zentall TR (eds) Comparative cognition: experimental explorations of animal intelligence. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 307–324Google Scholar
  7. Cook RG, Katz JS, Cavoto BR (1997) Pigeon same different concept learning with multiple stimulus classes. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 23:417–433CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. D’Amato MR (1971) Sample familiarity and delayed matching in monkeys. Psychon Sci 25:179–180Google Scholar
  9. D’Amato MR, Colombo M (1989) On the limits of the matching concept in monkeys (Cebus apella). J Exp Anal Behav 52:225–236CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. D’Amato MR, Salmon DP (1984) Cognitive processes in Cebus monkeys. In: Roitblat HL, Bever TG, Terrace HS (eds) Animal cognition. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, pp 149–168Google Scholar
  11. D’Amato MR, Salmon DP, Colombo M (1985) Extent and limits of the matching concept in monkeys (Cebus apella). J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 11:35–51CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. D’Amato MR, Salmon DP, Loukas E, Tomie A (1986) Processing of Identity and conditional relations in monkeys (Cebus apella) and pigeons (Columba livia). Anim Learn Behav 14:365–373Google Scholar
  13. Elmore LC, Wright AA, Rivera JJ (2009) Individual differences: either relational learning or item-specific learning in a same/different task. Learn Behav 37:204–213CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Fobes JL, King JE (1982) Measuring primate learning abilities. In: Fobes JL, King JE (eds) Primate behavior. Academic Press, New York, pp 289–386Google Scholar
  15. Galvão OF, Barros RS, Dos Santos JR, Brino ALF, Brandão S, Lavratti CM, Dube WV, McIlvane WJ (2005) Extent and limits of the matching concept in Cebus apella: a matter of experimental control? Psychol Rec 55:219–232Google Scholar
  16. Galvão OF, Soares-Filho PSD, Barros RS, Souza CBA (2008) Matching-to-sample as a model of symbolic behaviour for bio-behavioral investigations. Rev Neurosci 19:149–156Google Scholar
  17. Harlow HF (1949) The formation of learning set. Psychol Rev 56:51–65CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Herman LM, Gordon JA (1974) Auditory delayed matching in the bottlenose dolphin. J Exp Anal Behav 21:19–26CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Herman LM, Hovancik JR, Gory JD, Bradshaw GL (1989) Generalization and visual matching by a Bottle-nosed Dolphin (Tursiops truncatus): evidence for invariance of cognitive performance with visual and auditory materials. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 15:124–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Herrnstein RJ (1990) Level of stimulus control: a functional approach. Cognition 37:133–166CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Iversen IH, Sidman M, Carrigan P (1986) Stimulus definition in conditional discriminations. J Exp Anal Behav 45:297–304CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Jackson WJ, Pegram GV (1970) Comparison of intra- vs. extradimensional transfer of matching by rhesus monkeys. Psychon Sci 19:162–163Google Scholar
  23. Jacobs GH (1998) A perspective on color vision in platyrrhine monkeys. Vision Res 38:3307–3313CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Kastak D, Schusterman RJ (1994) Transfer of visual identity matching-to-sample in two Californian sea lions (Zalophus californianus). Anim Learn Behav 22:427–435Google Scholar
  25. Katz JS, Wright AA (2006) Mechanisms of same/different abstract-concept learning by pigeons. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 32:80–86CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Katz JS, Wright AA, Bachevalier J (2002) Mechanisms of same/different abstract-concept learning by rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta). J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 28:358–368CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Katz JS, Wright AA, Bodily KD (2007) Issues in the comparative cognition of abstract-concept learning. Comp Cogn Behav Rev 2:79–92PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Katz JS, Bodily KD, Wright AA (2008) Learning strategies in matching to sample: if-then and configural learning by pigeons. Behav Proc 77:223–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Katz JS, Sturz BR, Wright AA (2010) Domain is a moving target for relational learning. Behav Proc 83:172–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lombardi CM (2008) Matching and oddity relational learning by pigeons (Columba livia): transfer from color to shape. Anim Cogn 11:67–74CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Mercado E III, Killebrew DA, Pack AA, Mácha IVB, Herman LM (2000) Generalization of ‘same–different’ classification abilities in bottlenosed dolphins. Behav Proc 50:79–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mishkin M, Delacour J (1975) An analysis of short-term visual memory in the monkey. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 1:326–334CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Nakamura T, Wright AA, Katz JS, Bodily KD, Sturz R (2009) Abstract-concept learning carryover effects from the initial training set in pigeons (Columba livia). J Comp Psychol 123:79–89CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Nissen HW, Blum JS, Blum RA (1948) Analysis of matching behavior in chimpanzees. J Comp Physiol Psychol 41:62–74CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Oden DL, Thompson RKR, Premack D (1988) Spontaneous transfer of matching by infant chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 14:140–145CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Pack AA, Herman LM, Roitblat HL (1991) Generalization of visual matching and delayed matching by a California sea lion (Zalophus californianus). Anim Learn Behav 19:37–48Google Scholar
  37. Peña T, Pitts RC, Galizio M (2006) Identity matching-to-sample with olfactory stimuli in rats. J Exp Anal Behav 85:203–221CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Pepperberg IM (1987) Acquisition of the same/different concept by an African Grey parrot (Psittacus erithacus): learning with respect to categories of color, shape, and material. Anim Learn Behav 15:423–432Google Scholar
  39. Premack D (1978) On the abstractness of human concepts: why it would be difficult to talk to a pigeon. In: Hulse SH, Fowler H, Honig WK (eds) Cognitive processes in animal behavior. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, pp 423–451Google Scholar
  40. Premarck D (1983) The codes of man and beasts. Behav Brain Sci 6:125–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Saito A, Kawamura S, Mikami A, Ueno Y, Hiramatsu C, Koida K, Fujita K, Kuroshima H, Hasegawa T (2005) Demonstration of a genotype-phenotype correlation in the polymorphic color vision of a non-callitrichine New World monkey, capuchin (Cebus apella). Am J Primatol 67:471–485CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Spinozzi G, De Lillo C, Truppa V (2003) Global and local processing of hierarchical visual stimuli in tufted capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella). J Comp Psychol 117:15–23CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Spinozzi G, Lubrano G, Truppa V (2004) The categorization of above and below spatial relations by tufted capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella). J Comp Psychol 118:403–412CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Stuart GW, Bossomaier TRJ, Johnson S (1993) Preattentive processing of object size: implications for theories of size perception. Perception 22:1175–1193CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Thomas RK (1980) Evolution of intelligence: an approach to its assessment. Brain Behav Evol 17:454–472CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Thomas RK (1986) Investigating cognitive abilities in animals: unrealized potential. Cogn Brain Res 3:157–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Thompson RKR, Oden DL (2000) Categorical perception and conceptual judgments by nonhuman primates: the paleological monkey and the analogical ape. Cogn Sci 24:363–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Urcuioli PJ, Nevin JA (1975) Transfer of the hue matching in pigeons. J Exp Anal Behav 24:149–155CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Wasserman EA, Young ME (2010) Same-different discrimination: the keel and backbone of tough and reasoning. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 36:3–22CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Weinstein B (1941) Matching-form-sample by rhesus monkeys and by children. J Comp Physiol Psychol 31:195–213Google Scholar
  51. Wilson B, Mackintosh N, Boakes R (1985) Matching and oddity learning in the pigeons: transfer effects and the absence of relational learning. Q J Exp Psychol B 37:295–311Google Scholar
  52. Wright AA (1997) Concept learning and learning strategies. Psychol Sci 8:119–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wright AA (2001) Learning strategies in matching to sample. In: Cook RG (ed) Avian visual cognition. Online document. http://www.pigeon.psy.tufts.edu/avc/. Accessed 31 July 2009
  54. Wright AA, Delius JD (2005) Learning processes in matching and oddity: the oddity preference effect and sample reinforcement. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 31:425–432CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Wright AA, Katz JS (2006) Mechanisms of same/different concept learning in primates and avians. Behav Proc 72:234–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Wright AA, Katz JS (2007) Generalization hypothesis: learning strategies and related issues in Macaca mulatta, Cebus apella, and Columba livia. J Comp Psychol 121:387–397CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Wright AA, Katz JS (2009) A case for restricted-domain relational learning. Psychon Bull Rev 16:907–913CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Wright AA, Cook RG, Rivera JJ, Sands SF, Delius JD (1988) Concept learning by pigeons: matching-to-sample with trial unique video picture stimuli. Anim Learn Behav 16:436–444Google Scholar
  59. Wright AA, Rivera JJ, Katz JS, Bachevalier J (2003) Abstract-concept learning and list-memory processing by capuchin and rhesus monkeys. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 29:184–198CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Zentall TR, Hogan DE (1974) Abstract concept learning in the pigeon. J Exp Psychol 102:393–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Zentall TR, Hogan DE (1976) Pigeons can learn identity or difference or both. Science 191:408–409CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. Zentall TR, Hogan DE (1978) Same/different concept learning in the pigeon: the effect of negative instances and prior adaptation to transfer stimuli. J Exp Anal Behav 30:177–186CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Zentall TR, Edwards CA, Moore BS, Hogan DE (1981) Identity: the basis for both matching and oddity learning in pigeons. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 7:70–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Valentina Truppa
    • 1
    • 2
  • Duilio Garofoli
    • 3
  • Giulia Castorina
    • 1
  • Eva Piano Mortari
    • 3
  • Francesco Natale
    • 1
  • Elisabetta Visalberghi
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Cognitive Sciences and Technologies, National Research Council (CNR)RomeItaly
  2. 2.Department of General PsychologyUniversity of PaduaPaduaItaly
  3. 3.University of Rome ‘La Sapienza’RomeItaly

Personalised recommendations