Advertisement

Animal Cognition

, Volume 16, Issue 1, pp 99–107 | Cite as

Picture–object recognition in the tortoise Chelonoidis carbonaria

  • Anna Wilkinson
  • Julia Mueller-Paul
  • Ludwig Huber
Original Paper

Abstract

To recognize that a picture is a representation of a real-life object is a cognitively demanding task. It requires an organism to mentally represent the concrete object (the picture) and abstract its relation to the item that it represents. This form of representational insight has been shown in a small number of mammal and bird species. However, it has not previously been studied in reptiles. This study examined picture–object recognition in the red-footed tortoise (Chelonoidis carbonaria). In Experiment 1, five red-footed tortoises were trained to distinguish between food and non-food objects using a two-alternative forced choice procedure. After reaching criterion, they were presented with test trials in which the real objects were replaced with color photographs of those objects. There was no difference in performance between training and test trials, suggesting that the tortoises did see some correspondence between the real object and its photographic representation. Experiment 2 examined the nature of this correspondence by presenting the tortoises with a choice between the real food object and a photograph of it. The findings revealed that the tortoises confused the photograph with the real-life object. This suggests that they process real items and photographic representations of these items in the same way and, in this context, do not exhibit representational insight.

Keywords

Picture–object recognition Tortoise Turtle Reptile Visual perception 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the cold-blooded cognition group at the University of Vienna and the University of Lincoln for their helpful comments. We particularly thank Karin Kuenstner for help in running part of the experiment. We are also indebted to Wolfgang Berger for making the setup and Michael Pollirer for providing the experimental arena. This work was supported by funding from the Austrian Science Fund (to L.H.) contract number P19574.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Declaration

The experiments comply with the current laws of Austria.

References

  1. Aust U, Huber L (2006) Picture-object recognition in pigeons: evidence of representational insight in a visual categorization task using a complementary information procedure. J Exper Psychol Anim Behav Proc 32:190–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aust U, Huber L (2010) Representational insight in pigeons: comparing subjects with and without real-life experience. Anim Cogn 13:207–218. doi: 10.1007/s10071-009-0258-4 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bovet D, Vauclair J (2000) Picture recognition in animals and humans. Behav Brain Res 109:143–165PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Burghardt GM (1977) Learning processes in reptiles. In: Gans C, Tinkle DW (eds) Biology of the reptilia. Academic Press, London, pp 555–681Google Scholar
  5. Carpenter CC, Badham JA, Kimble B (1970) Behavior patterns of three species of Amphibolurus (Agamidae). Copeia 1970:497–505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dasser V (1987) Slides of group members as representations of the real animals (Macaca fascicularis). Ethology 76:65–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Davis KM, Burghardt GM (2007) Training and long-term memory of a novel food 443 acquisition task in a turtle (Pseudemys nelsoni). Behav Proc 27:225–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Davis KM, Burghardt GM (2012) Long-term retention of visual tasks by two species of emydid turtles, Pseudemys nelsoni and Trachemys scripta. J Comp Psychol. doi: 10.1037/a0027827 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Delius JD, Emmerton J, Hörster W, Jäger R, Ostheim J (2000) Picture-object recognition in pigeons. In: Fagot J (ed) Picture perception in animals. Psychology Press, England, pp 1–36Google Scholar
  10. DeLoache JS (2004) Becoming symbol-minded. Trends Cog Sci 8:66–70. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2003.12.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fagot J, Martin-Malivel J, Dépy D (2000) What is the evidence for an equivalence between objects and pictures in birds and non-human primates? In: Fagot J (ed) Picture perception in animals. Psychology Press, England, pp 295–320Google Scholar
  12. Fagot J, Thompson RKR, Parron C (2010) How to read a picture: lessons from nonhuman primates. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA 107:519–520PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hansknecht KA, Burghardt GM (2010) Stimulus control of lingual predatory luring and related foraging tactics of mangrove saltmarsh snakes (Nerodia clarkii comPressicauda). J Comp Psychol 124:159–165PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Huber L (2010) Categories and concepts: language-related competences in non-linguistic species. In: Breed MD, Moore J (eds) Encyclopedia of animal behavior. Academic Press, Oxford, pp 261–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Huber L, Aust U (2011) A modified feature theory as an account of pigeon visual categorization. In: Zentall TR, Wasserman EA (eds) The Oxford handbook of comparative cognition. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 497–512Google Scholar
  16. Kendrick KM, Atkins K, Hinton MR, Heavens P, Keverne B (1996) Are faces special for sheep? Evidence from facial and object discrimination learning tests showing effects of inversion and social familiarity. Behav Proc 38:19–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lea SEG, Dittrich WH (2000) What do birds see in moving video images? In: Fagot J (ed) Picture perception in animals. Psychology Press, England, pp 143–180Google Scholar
  18. Macedonia JM, Evans CS, Losos JB (1994) Male Anoli discriminate video-recorded conspecific and heterospecific displays. Anim Behav 47:1220–1223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Macphail EM (1982) Brain and intelligence in vertebrates. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  20. Moskovits DK (1985) The behavior and ecology of two Amazonian tortoises, Geochelone carbonaria and Geochelone denticulata, in northwestern Brazil. Ph.D. thesis, University of Chicago, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  21. Mueller-Paul J, Wilkinson A, Hall G, Huber L (2012) Radial-arm maze navigation of the red-footed tortoises (Geochelone carbonaria). J Comp Psychol. doi: 10.1037/a0026881 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Neumeyer C (1998) Color vision in lower vertebrates. In: Backhaus WGK, Kliegl R, Werner JS (eds) Color vision: perspectives from different disciplines. de Gruyter, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  23. Ord TJ, Evans CS (2002) Interactive video playback and opponent assessment in lizards. Behav Proc 59:55–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ord TJ, Peters RA, Evans CS, Taylor AJ (2002) Digital video playback and visual communication in lizards. Anim Behav 63:879–890CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Parron C, Call J, Fagot J (2008) Behavioural responses to photographs by pictorially naïve baboons (PaPio anubis), gorillas (Gorilla gorilla) and chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). Behav Proc 78:351–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Strong JN, Fragoso JMV (2006) Seed dispersal by Geochelone carbonaria and Geochelone denticulate in Northwestern Brazil. Biotropica 38:683–686CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Van Dyk DA, Evans CS (2008) Opponent assessment in lizards: examining the effect of aggressive and submissive signals. Behav Ecol. doi: 10.1093/beheco/arn052
  28. Watanabe S (2000) How do pigeons see pictures? Recognition of the real world from its 2D perspective. In: Fagot J (ed) Picture perception in animals. Psychology Press, England, pp 71–90Google Scholar
  29. Weisman RG, Spetch ML (2010) Determining when birds perceive correspondence between pictures and objects: a critique. Comp Cogn Behav Rev 5:117–131. doi: 10.3819/ccbr.2010.50006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Wilkinson A, Chan HM, Hall G (2007) A study of spatial learning and memory in the tortoise (Geochelone carbonaria). J Comp Psychol 121:412–418PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Wilkinson A, Coward S, Hall G (2009) Visual and response-based navigation in the tortoise (Geochelone carbonaria). Anim Cogn 12:779–787PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wilkinson A, Kuenstner K, Mueller J, Huber L (2010a) Social learning in a non-social reptile. Biol Lett 6:614–616. doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2010.0092 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wilkinson A, Mandl I, Bugnyar T, Huber L (2010b) Gaze following in the red-footed tortoise (Geochelone carbonaria). Anim Cogn 13:765–769. doi: 10.1007/s10071-010-0320-2 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wilkinson A, Specht HL, Huber L (2010c) Pigeons can discriminate group mates from strangers using the concept of familiarity. Anim Behav 80:109–115. doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2010.04.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Williams EE, Rand AS (1977) Species recognition dewlap function and faunal size. Am Zool 17:261–270Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anna Wilkinson
    • 1
    • 2
  • Julia Mueller-Paul
    • 2
  • Ludwig Huber
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.School of Life SciencesUniversity of LincolnRiseholme Park, LincolnUK
  2. 2.Department of Cognitive BiologyUniversity of ViennaViennaAustria
  3. 3.Messerli Research InstituteUniversity of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, Medical University Vienna, and University of ViennaViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations