Journal of Ethology

, Volume 27, Issue 2, pp 289–293 | Cite as

Quantity discrimination in felines: a preliminary investigation of the domestic cat (Felis silvestris catus)

Short Communication

Abstract

A large body of studies has investigated the capacity of non-human primates, dogs, birds and lower vertebrates to estimate different quantities of objects or events. Little attention, however, has been devoted to felines, and no study has specifically concentrated on cats’ numerical cognition. The present study aims to investigate the capacity of domestic cats to distinguish between two and three dots in order to obtain food; results showed that cats can be trained to discriminate between the two quantities. Furthermore our research suggests that cats do not spontaneously use numerical information, but rather seem to make use of visual cues that co-vary with numerosity in order to solve the task.

Keywords

Cat Numerical competence Quantity discrimination Counting Animal cognition 

References

  1. Agrillo C, Dadda M, Bisazza A (2007) Quantity discrimination in female mosquitofish. Anim Cogn 10:63–70PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Agrillo C, Dadda M, Serena G, Bisazza A (2008) Do fish count? Spontaneous discrimination of quantity in female mosquitofish. Anim Cogn 11(3):495–503PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson US, Stoinski TS, Bloomsmith MA, Marr MJ, Smith AD, Maple TL (2005) Relative numerousness judgment and summation in young and old western lowland gorillas. J Comp Psychol 119(3):285–295PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beran MJ, Evans TA, Harris EH (2008) Perception of food amounts by chimpanzees based on the number, size, contour length and visibility of items. Anim Behav 75:1793–1802CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Chiandetti C, Vallortigara G (2008) Is there an innate geometric module? Effects of experience with angular geometric cues on spatial re-orientation based on the shape of the environment. Anim Cogn 11:139–146PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Davis H, Perusse R (1988) Numerical competence in animals: definitional issues, current evidence and a new research agenda. Behav Brain Sci 11:561–579CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Feigenson L, Carey S, Spelke ES (2002) Infants’ discrimination of number vs. continuous extent. Cogn Psychol 44:33–66PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gelman R, Gallistel CR (1978) The child’s understanding of numbers. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  9. Hauser MD, Carey S, Hauser LB (2000) Spontaneous number representation in semi-free-ranging rhesus monkeys. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 267:829–833CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Heinsohn R (1997) Group territoriality in two populations of African lions. Anim Behav 53:1143–1147PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lyon BE (2003) Egg recognition and counting reduce costs of avian conspecific brood parasitism. Nature 422:495–499PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. McComb K, Packer C, Pusey A (1994) Roaring and numerical assessment in the contests between groups of female lions, Panther leo. Anim Behav 47:379–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Sovrano VA, Bisazza A, Vallortigara G (2007) How fish do geometry in large and in small spaces. Anim Cogn 10:47–54PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Stephens DW, Krebs JR (1986) Foraging theory. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  15. Stevens JR, Wood JN, Hauser MD (2007) When quantity trumps number: discrimination experiments in cotton-top tamarins (Saguinus oedipus) and common marmosets (Callithrix jacchus). Anim Cogn 10:429–437PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Tomonaga M (2008) Relative numerosity discrimination by chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes): evidence for approximate numerical representations. Anim Cogn 11(1):43–57PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Uller C, Jaeger R, Guidry G, Martin C (2003) Salamanders (Plethodon cinereus) go for more: rudiments of number in a species of basal vertebrate. Anim Cogn 6:105–112PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Wilson ML, Hauser MD, Wrangham RW (2001) Does participation in intergroup conflict depend on numerical assessment, range location, or rank for wild chimpanzees? Anim Behav 61:1203–1216CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Japan Ethological Society and Springer 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Psychology DepartmentGoethe-UniversitätFrankfurt am MainGermany
  2. 2.Department of General PsychologyUniversity of PadovaPadovaItaly

Personalised recommendations