Animal Cognition

, Volume 9, Issue 4, pp 271–279 | Cite as

Towards a “virtual pigeon”: A new technique for investigating avian social perception

Original Article

Abstract

The purpose of the present study is to examine the applicability of a computer-generated, virtual animal to study animal cognition. Pigeons were trained to discriminate between movies of a real pigeon and a rat. Then, they were tested with movies of the computer-generated (CG) pigeon. Subjects showed generalization to the CG pigeon, however, they also responded to modified versions in which the CG pigeon was showing impossible movement, namely hopping and walking without its head bobbing. Hence, the pigeons did not attend to these particular details of the display. When they were trained to discriminate between the normal and the modified version of the CG pigeon, they were able to learn the discrimination. The results of an additional partial occlusion test suggest that the subjects used head movement as a cue for the usual vs. unusual CG pigeon discrimination.

References

  1. Adret P (1977) Discrimination of video images by zebra finches (Taeniopygia guttata): direct evidence from song performance. J Comp Psychol 111:115–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cook RG (2000) The comparative psychology of avian visual cognition. Curr Direct Psychol Sci 9:83–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cook RG, Shaw R, Blaisdell AP (2001) Dynamic object perception by pigeons: discrimination of action in video presentations. Anim Cogn 4:137–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. D’Eath RB (1998) Can video images imitate real stimuli in animal behavior experiments? Bio Rev Cambridge Philos Soc 73:267–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. D’Eath RB, Dawkins MS (1996) Laying hens do not discriminate between video images of conspecifics. Anim Behav 52:903–912CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dittrich WH, Lea SEG (1993) Motion as a natural category for pigeons: generalization and a feature-positive effect. J Exp Anal Behav 59:115–129PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dittrich WH, Lea SEG, Barrett J, Gurr PR (1998) Categorization of natural movements by pigeons: visual concept discrimination and biological motion. J Exp Anal Behav 70:281–299PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Goto K, Lea SE, Dittrich WH (2002) Discrimination of intentional and random motion paths by pigeons. Anim Cogn 5:119–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Evans CS, Marler P (1991) One video images as social stimuli in birds: audience effects on alarm calling. Anim Behav 41:17–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Jitsumori M, Natori M, Okuyama K (1999) Recognition of moving video images of conspecifics by pigeons: effects of individuals, static and dynamic motion cues, and movement. Anim Learn Behav 27:303–315Google Scholar
  11. Johansson G (1973) Visual perception of biological motion and a model for its analysis. Percep Psychophys 14:201–211Google Scholar
  12. Partan S, Yelda S, Price V, Shimizu T (2005) Female pigeons, Columba livia, respond to multisensory audio/video playbacks of male courtship behaviour. Anim Behav 70:957–966CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Patterson-Kane E, Nicol CJ, Foster TM, Temple W (1997) Limited perception of video images by domestic hens. Anim Behav 53:951–963CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Powell RW (1967) The pulse-to-cycle fraction as a determinant of critical flicker fusion in the pigeon. Psychol Rec 17:151–160Google Scholar
  15. Remy M, Emmerton J (1989) Behavioral spectral sensitivities of different retinal areas in pigeons. Behav Neurosci 103:170–177PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ryan CME, Lea SEG (1994) Images of conspecifics as categories to be discriminated by pigeons and chickens: slides, video tapes, stuffed birds and live birds. Behav Proc 33:155–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Shimizu T (1998) Conspecific recognition in pigeons (Columba livia) using dynamic video images. Behav 135:43–53Google Scholar
  18. Tinbergen N (1951) The study of instinct. Oxford Univ Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  19. Watanabe S (1993) Object-picture equivalence in the pigeon: An analysis with natural concept and pseudoconcept discrimination. Behav Proc 30:225–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Watanabe S (1997) Visual discrimination of real objects and pictures in pigeons. Anim Learn Behav 25:185–192Google Scholar
  21. Watanabe S (2001) Van Gogh, Chagall and pigeons: picture discrimination in pigeons and humans. Anim Cogn 4:147–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Watanabe S (2002) Preference for mirror images and video image in Java sparrows (Padda oryzivora). Behav Proc 60:35–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Watanabe S, Furuya I (1997) Video display for study of avian visual cognition: from psychophysics to sign language. Intl J Comp Psychol 10:111–127Google Scholar
  24. Watanabe S, Huber L (2006) Animal logics: decisions in the absence of human language. Anim Cogn, DOI 10.1007/s10071-006-0043-6Google Scholar
  25. Watanabe S, Jian T (1993) Visual and auditory cues in conspecific discrimination learning in Bengalese finches. J Eth 11:111–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Yamazaki Y, Shinohara N, Watanabe S (2004) Visual discrimination of normal and drug induced behavior in quails (Coturnix coturnix, japonica). Anim Cogn 7:128–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyKeio UniversityTokyoJapan
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyQueen’s UniversityKingstonCanada

Personalised recommendations