Advertisement

Animal Cognition

, Volume 15, Issue 3, pp 305–312 | Cite as

Finding the best angle: pigeons (Columba livia) weight angular information more heavily than relative wall length in an open-field geometry task

  • Danielle M. Lubyk
  • Marcia L. Spetch
Original Paper

Abstract

Pigeons were trained to locate food in two geometrically equivalent corners of a parallelogram-shaped enclosure. Both the angular amplitude of the corners and the length of the walls alone were sufficient for successfully completing the task. Following training, birds were tested in three separate conditions that manipulated the geometric information available. During tests in both a rectangular-shaped enclosure that preserved the wall length information but not the angular amplitude, and a rhombus-shaped enclosure that did the opposite, pigeons located their goal corners with a high degree of accuracy, indicating an ability to use both types of geometric information in isolation. This result is consistent with prior research with domestic chicks. However, in a conflict test in a reverse parallelogram-shaped enclosure, in which the correct angular location was paired with an incorrect wall length location, birds showed a preference for the correct angular location. This suggests that pigeons weight angles more heavily than wall lengths in this type of navigation task, which differs from findings in a similar task conducted with the domestic chick. Results in the conflict test also suggest that pigeons did not use the principal axis as their main strategy of small-scale navigation.

Keywords

Geometry Orientation Parallelogram Wall length Angular amplitude 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Jocelynn Gray and Carla Edgington for assistance with data collection and scoring and Isaac Lank for assistance with constructing the apparatus. This study was funded by a Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada Discovery grant awarded to MLS. All research was conducted in accordance with Canadian Council on Animal Care guidelines and with approval from the University of Alberta Animal Welfare Policy Committee.

Supplementary material

Supplementary material 1 (WMV 10701 kb)

References

  1. Able KP (1991) Common themes and variations in animal orientation systems. Am Zool 31:157–167Google Scholar
  2. Brown AA, Spetch ML, Hurd PL (2007) Growing in circles, rearing environment alters spatial navigation in fish. Psychol Sci 18:569–573PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cheng K (1986) A purely geometric module in the rat’s spatial representation. Cognition 23:149–178PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cheng K, Gallistel CR (2005) Shape parameters explain data from spatial transformations: comment on Pearce et al. (2004) and Tommasi and Polli (2004). J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Proc 31:254–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cheng K, Newcombe NS (2005) Is there a geometric module for spatial orientation? Squaring theory and evidence. Psychon Bull Rev 12:1–23PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cheng K, Spetch ML (1988) Mechanisms of landmark use in mammals and birds. In: Healy S (ed) Spatial representation in animals. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 1–17Google Scholar
  7. Cheng K, Spetch ML, Kelly DM, Bingman VP (2006) Small-scale spatial cognition in pigeons. Behav Proc 72:115–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Della Chiesa A, Speranza M, Tommasi L, Vallortigara G (2006a) Spatial cognition based on geometry and landmarks in the domestic chick (Gallus gallus). Behav Brain Res 175:119–127PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Della Chiesa A, Pecchia T, Tommasi L, Vallortigara G (2006b) Multiple landmarks, the encoding of environmental geometry and the spatial logistics of a dual brain. Anim Cogn 9:281–293PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gibson BM, Wilks TJ, Kelly DM (2007) Rats (Rattus norvegicus) encode the shape of an array of discrete objects. J Comp Psychol 121:130–144PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gouteux S, Thinus-Blanc C, Vauclair J (2001) Rhesus monkeys use geometric and nongeometric information during a reorientation task. J Exp Psychol Gen 130:505–519PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gray E, Spetch ML (2006) Pigeons encode absolute distance but relational direction from landmarks and walls. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Proc 32:474–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gray E, Spetch ML, Kelly DM, Nguyen A (2004) Searching in the center: pigeons encode relative distance from walls of an enclosure. J Comp Psychol 118:113–117PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hermer L, Spelke ES (1994) A geometric process for spatial reorientation in young children. Lett Nat 370:57–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hupbach A, Nadel L (2005) Reorientation in a rhombic environment: no evidence for an encapsulated geometric module. Cogn Dev 20:279–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kelly DM, Spetch ML (2001) Pigeons encode relative geometry. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Proc 27:417–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kelly DM, Spetch ML (in press) Comparative spatial cognition: encoding of geometric information from surfaces and landmark arrays. In: Wasserman E, Zentall T (eds) Handbook of comparative cognition. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  18. Kelly DM, Spetch ML, Heth CD (1998) Pigeons’ (Columba livia) encoding of geometric and featural properties of a spatial environment. J Comp Psychol 112:259–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kelly DM, Chiandetti C, Vallortigara G (2011) Re-orienting in space: do animals use global or local geometry strategies? Biol Lett 7:372–375Google Scholar
  20. Pearce JM, Good MA, Jones PM, McGregor A (2004) Transfer of spatial behavior between different environments: implications for theories of spatial learning and for the role of the hippocampus in spatial learning. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Proc 30:135–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Reichert JF, Kelly DM (2011) Use of local and global geometry from object arrays by adult humans. Behav Process 86:196–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sovrano VA, Bisazza A, Vallortigara G (2002) Modularity and spatial orientation in a simple mind: encoding of geometric and nongeometric properties of a spatial environment by fish. Cognition 85:B51–B59PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Sovrano VA, Bisazza A, Vallortigara G (2003) Modularity as a fish (Xenotoca eiseni) views it: conjoining geometric and nongeometric information for spatial reorientation. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Proc 29:199–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Sovrano VA, Bisazza A, Vallortigara G (2007) How fish do geometry in large and in small spaces. Anim Cogn 10:47–54PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sturz BR, Gurley T, Bodily KD (2011) Orientation in trapezoid-shaped enclosures: implications for theoretical accounts of geometry learning. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Proc 37:246–253Google Scholar
  26. Tommasi L, Polli C (2004) Representation of two geometric features of the environment in the domestic chick (Gallus gallus). Anim Cogn 7:53–59PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Tommasi L, Vallortigara G (2000) Searching for the center: spatial cognition in the domestic chick. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Proc 26:477–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Twyman A, Friedman A, Spetch ML (2007) Penetrating the geometric module: catalyzing children’s use of landmarks. Dev Psychol 43:1523–1530PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Vallortigara G, Zanforlin M, Pasti G (1990) Geometric modules in animals’ spatial representations: a test with chicks (Gallus gallus domesticus). J Comp Psychol 104:248–254PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Vallortigara G, Pagni P, Sovrano VA (2004) Separate geometric and non-geometric modules for spatial representation: evidence from a lopsided animal brain. J Cogn Neurosci 16:390–400PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Vargas JP, López JC, Salas C, Thinus-Blanc C (2004) Encoding of geometric and featural information by goldfish (Carassius auratus). J Comp Psychol 118:206–216PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wang RF, Hermer L, Spelke ES (1999) Mechanisms of reorientation and object localization by children: a comparison with rats. Behav Neurosci 113:475–485PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wilzeck C, Prior H, Kelly DM (2009) Geometry and landmark representation by pigeons: evidence for species differences in the hemispheric organization of spatial information processing? Eur J Neurosci 29:813–822PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wystrach A, Beugnon G (2009) Ants learn geometry and features. Curr Biol 19:61–66PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of AlbertaEdmontonCanada

Personalised recommendations