Animal Cognition

, Volume 14, Issue 2, pp 227–234 | Cite as

Discriminative and reinforcing properties of paintings in Java sparrows (Padda oryzivora)

Original Paper

Abstract

Previous studies suggest that non-human animals can discriminate two different artworks (such as music or paintings) that were created by humans. However, such studies rarely examined whether those animals were reinforced by one artwork more than another. It has been shown that music composed by humans has both discriminative and reinforcing properties when played for Java sparrows. Here, we investigated the effects of another artistic medium in Java sparrows, namely paintings. The first experiment tested the reinforcing properties. Staying time at three painting categories—Japanese, cubist, and impressionist—was measured as an index of their reinforcing properties. The second experiment used operant conditioning to reveal the discriminative properties of the different artistic styles of such paintings. Results suggest that the paintings have both discriminative and reinforcing properties for Java sparrows. However, the reinforcing properties vary from individual to individual. This is the first report demonstrating reinforcing properties of visual artworks in non-human animals.

Keywords

Discriminative property Reinforcing property Paintings Java sparrows 

Supplementary material

10071_2010_356_MOESM1_ESM.doc (381 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOC 381 kb)

References

  1. Ahmad PJ (1985) Visual art preference studies: a review of contradictions. Vis Arts Res 11:100–107Google Scholar
  2. Averbeck BB, Lee D (2004) Coding and transmission of information by neural ensembles. Trends Neurosci 27:225–230. doi:10.1016/j.tins.2004.02.006 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Berlyne DE (1971) Aesthetics and psychobiology. Appleton-Century-Crofts, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. Bichot NP, Rossi AF, Desimone R (2005) Paraellel and serial neural mechanisms for visual search in macaque area V4. Science 308:529–534. doi:10.1126/science.1109676 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Chase AR (2001) Music discriminations by carp (Cyprinus carpio). Anim Learn Behav 29:336–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cook RG (2000) The comparative psychology of avian visual cognition. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 9:83–89. doi:10.1111/1467-8721.00066 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Drăgănoiu TI, Nagle L, Kreutzer M (2002) Directional female preference for an exaggerated male trait in canary (Serinus canaria) song. Proc Biol Sci 269:2525–2531. doi:10.1098/rspb.2002.2192 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Gordon DA (1951) Experimental psychology and cubist painting. J Aesthetics Art Critism 9:227–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hulse SH, Bernard DJ, Braaten RF (1995) Auditory discrimination of chord-based spectral structures by European starlings (Sturnus vulgaris). J Exp Psychol Gen 124:409–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Humphrey NK (1972) ‘Interest’ and ‘pleasure’: two determinants of a monkey’s visual preferences. Perception 1:395–416CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Kawabata H, Zeki S (2004) Neural correlates of beauty. J Neurophysiol 91:1699–1705. doi:10.1152/jn.00696.2003 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. McDermott J, Hauser MD (2007) Nonhuman primates prefer slow tempos but dislike music overall. Cognition 104:654–668. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2006.07.011 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Okaichi Y, Okaichi H (2001) Music discrimination by rats. Jap J Anim Psychol 51:29–34Google Scholar
  14. Otsuka Y, Yanagi J, Watanabe S (2009) Discriminative and reinforcing stimulus properties of music for rats. Behav Processes 80:121–127. doi:10.1016/S0376-6357(99)00049-2 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Poli M, Previde EP (1991) Discrimination of musical stimuli by rats (Rattus norvegicus). Internl J Comp Psychol 5:7–18Google Scholar
  16. Redies C (2007) A universal model of esthetic perception based on the sensory coding of natural stimuli. Spat Vis 21:97–117. doi:10.1163/156856807782753886 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Reinert VJ (1957) Akustische Dressurversuche an einem indischen Elefanten. Z Tierpsychol 14:100–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Rensch B (1957) Ästhetische Faktoren bei Farb-und Formbevorzugungen von Affen/Aesthetic factors in color and form preferences of pithecoids. Z Tierpsychol 14:71–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Uy JAC, Patricelli GL, Borgia G (2001) Complex mate searching in the satin bowerbird Ptilonorhynchus violaceus. Am Nat 158:530–542. doi:10.1086/323118 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Watanabe S (2001) Van Gogh, Chagall and pigeons: picture discrimination in pigeons and humans. Anim Cogn 4:147–151. doi:10.1007/s100710100112 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Watanabe S (2002) Preference for mirror images and video image in Java sparrows (Padda oryzivora). Behav Processes 60:35–39. doi:10.1016/S0376-6357(02)00094-3 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Watanabe S (2010) Pigeons can discriminate “good” and “bad” paintings by children. Anim Cogn 13:75–85. doi:10.1007/s10071-009-0246-8 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Watanabe S, Sato K (1999) Discriminative stimulus properties of music in Java sparrows. Behav Processes 47:53–57. doi:10.1016/S0376-6357(99)00049-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Watanabe S, Sakamoto J, Wakita M (1995) Pigeons’ discrimination of paintings by Monet and Picasso. J Exp Anal Behav 63:165–174. doi:10.1901/jeab.1995.63-165 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Zeki S (1999) Inner vision: an exploration of art and the brain. Oxford University Press, LondonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyKeio UniversityTokyoJapan
  2. 2.Japan Society for the Promotion of ScienceTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations