Animal Cognition

, Volume 13, Issue 2, pp 207–218 | Cite as

Representational insight in pigeons: comparing subjects with and without real-life experience

Original Paper

Abstract

Understanding the relation between objects and their pictures at a level beyond mere feature discrimination is by no means a trivial cognitive ability, and support of this is still weak in nonhuman species. Here, we report evidence of representational insight in pigeons. Responding to pictures of human body parts was compared in birds that had extensive pre-experience with live humans and in birds that had never seen any human heads. In a two-alternative forced-choice procedure the pigeons were trained to discriminate between pictures of either handless or headless humans and nonhumans. On test, the birds had to choose (i) between body parts they had already seen in training and the parts that had been missing, (ii) between previously seen parts and arbitrary skin patches, and (iii) between previously missing parts and skin patches. Only the pigeons that lacked experience with real heads and were trained with pictures of headless humans failed to show a significant preference for pictures of missing parts (i.e., heads) over arbitrary skin patches. This demonstrates the importance of individual experience with the real 3D-referents of pictures for classification of the latter and is thereby evidence of representational insight.

Keywords

Picture–object recognition Representational insight Visual experience Pigeons 

References

  1. Aust U, Huber L (2001) The role of item- and category-specific information in the discrimination of people versus nonpeople images by pigeons. Anim Learn Behav 29:107–119Google Scholar
  2. Aust U, Huber L (2002) Target-defining features in a “people-present/people-absent” discrimination task by pigeons. Anim Learn Behav 30:165–176PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Aust U, Huber L (2003) Elemental versus configural perception in a people-present/people-absent discrimination task by pigeons. Learn Behav 31:213–224PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 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 Exp Psychol: Anim Behav Proc 32:190–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beilin H (1999) Understanding the photographic image. J Appl Dev Psychol 20:1–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bovet D, Vauclair J (2000) Picture recognition in animals and humans. Behav Brain Res 109:143–165CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Cabe PA (1976) Transfer of discrimination from solid objects to pictures by pigeons: a test of theoretical models of pictorial perception. Perc Psychophys 19:545–550Google Scholar
  8. Cook RG, Wasserman EA (2006) Relational discrimination learning in pigeons. In: Zentall T, Wasserman EA (eds) Comparative cognition: experimental explorations of animal intelligence. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 307–324Google Scholar
  9. Dasser V (1987) Slides of group members as representations of real animals (Macaca fascicularis). Ethology 76:65–73Google Scholar
  10. D’Eath RB (1998) Can video images imitate real stimuli in animal behaviour experiments? Biol Rev 73:267–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Delius JD (1992) Categorical discrimination of objects and pictures by pigeons. Anim Learn Behav 20:301–311Google Scholar
  12. 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 Ltd, East Sussex, pp 1–35Google Scholar
  13. DeLoache JS (1995) Early symbolic understanding and use. In: Medin D (ed) The psychology of learning and motivation, 33. Academic Press, New York, pp 65–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. DeLoache JS (2000) Dual representation and young children’s use of scale models. Child Dev 71:329–338CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Fagot J, Martin-Malivel J, Dépy D (2000) What is the evidence for an equivalence between objects and pictures in birds and nonhuman primates? In: Fagot J (ed) Picture perception in animals. Psychology Press Ltd, East Sussex, pp 295–320Google Scholar
  16. Ghosh N, Lea SEG, Noury M (2004) Transfer to intermediate forms following concept discrimination by pigeons: chimeras and morphs. J Exp Anal Behav 82:125–141CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Greene S (1983) Feature memorization in pigeon concept formation. In: Commons ML, Herrnstein RJ, Wagner AR (eds) Quantitative analysis of behavior, vol 4. Ballinger, Cambridge, MA, pp 209–229Google Scholar
  18. Hall G (1991) Perceptual and associative learning. Clarendon Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Herrnstein RJ, Loveland DH (1964) Complex visual concept in the pigeon. Science 146:549–551CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Huber L, Troje NF, Loidolt M, Aust U, Grass D (2000) Natural categorization through multiple feature learning in pigeons. Quart J Exp Psychol 53B:343–357Google Scholar
  21. Ittelson WH (1996) Visual perception of markings. Psychon Bull Rev 3:171–187Google Scholar
  22. Kawai N, Kitaguchi K (1999) Evidence for within-compound learning in an instrumental conditioning with rats. Behav Proc 44:317–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lea SEG, Dittrich WH (2000) What do birds see in moving video images? In: Fagot J (ed) Picture perception in animals. Psychology Press Ltd, East Sussex, pp 143–180Google Scholar
  24. Lechelt DP, Spetch ML (1997) Pigeons’ use of landmarks for spatial search in a laboratory arena and in digitized images of the arena. Learn Mot 28:424–445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lombardi CM, Delius JD (1989) Pattern recognition invariance in pigeons: outline, colour and contrast. Int J Comp Psychol 2:83–102Google Scholar
  26. Looney TA, Cohen PS (1974) Pictorial target control of schedule-induced attack in white carneaux pigeons. J Exp Anal Behav 21:571–584CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Malott RW, Siddall JW (1972) Acquisition of the people concept in pigeons. Psychol Rep 31:3–13Google Scholar
  28. Pearce JM (1987) A model for stimulus generalization in Pavlovian conditioning. Psychol Rev 94:61–73CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Pearce JM (2002) Evaluation and development of a connectionist theory of configural learning. Anim Learn Behav 30:73–97PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Pearce JM, Hall G (1979) Loss of associability by a compound stimulus comprising excitatory and inhibitory elements. J Exp Psychol: Anim Behav Proc 5:19–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pearce JM, Adam J, Wilson PN, Darby RJ (1992) Effects of discrimination training on responding during a compound conditioned stimulus. J Exp Psychol: Anim Behav Proc 18:379–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Siegel RK, Honig WK (1970) Pigeon concept formation: successive and simultaneous acquisition. J Exp Anal Behav 13:385–390CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Troje NF, Huber L, Loidolt M, Aust U, Fieder M (1999) Categorical learning in pigeons: the role of texture and shape in complex static stimuli. Vis Res 39:353–366CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Wagner AR (2003) Context-sensitive elemental theory. Quart J Exp Psychol 56B:7–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Watanabe S (1993) Object–picture equivalence in the pigeon: an analysis with natural concept and pseudoconcept discriminations. Behav Proc 30:225–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Watanabe S (1997) Visual discrimination of real objects and pictures in pigeons. Anim Learn Behav 25:185–192Google Scholar
  37. Watanabe S (2000) How do pigeons see pictures? Recognition of the real world from its 2-representation. In: Fagot J (ed) Picture perception in animals. Psychology Press Ltd, East Sussex, pp 71–90Google Scholar
  38. Watanabe S, Lea SEG, Dittrich W (1993) What can we learn from experiments on pigeon concept discrimination? In: Zeigler HP, Bischof HJ (eds) Vision, brain, and behavior in birds. Cambridge MA, MIT Press, pp 351–367Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Neurobiology and Cognition ResearchUniversity of ViennaViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations