Animal Cognition

, Volume 16, Issue 5, pp 737–753 | Cite as

Pigeons learn virtual patterned-string problems in a computerized touch screen environment

  • Edward A. WassermanEmail author
  • Yasuo Nagasaka
  • Leyre Castro
  • Stephen J. Brzykcy
Original Paper


For many decades, developmental and comparative psychologists have used a variety of string tasks to assess the perceptual and cognitive capabilities of human children of different ages and different species of nonhuman animals. The most important and widely used of these problems are patterned-string tasks, in which the organism is shown two or more strings, only one of which is connected to a reward. The organism must determine which string is attached to the reward and pull it. We report a new way to implement patterned-string tasks via a computerized touch screen apparatus. Pigeons successfully learned such virtual patterned-string tasks and exhibited the same general performance profile as animals given conventional patterned-string tasks. In addition, variations in the length, separation, and alignment of the strings reliably affected the pigeons’ virtual string-pulling behavior. These results not only testify to the power and versatility of our computerized string task, but they also demonstrate that pigeons can concurrently contend with a broad range of demanding patterned-string problems, thereby eliminating many alternative interpretations of their behavior. The virtual patterned-string task may thus permit expanded exploration of other species and variables which would be unlikely to be undertaken either because of inadequacies of conventional methodology or sensorimotor limitations of the studied organisms.


Patterned-string task Pigeons Touch screen Perception Cognition 



We would like to thank Sacha Perez for help in preparing the videos in the online supplementary material.

Supplementary material

10071_2013_608_MOESM1_ESM.doc (52 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOC 52 kb)


  1. Adams DK (1929) Experimental studies of adaptive behavior in cats. Comp Psychol Monogr 6:1–166Google Scholar
  2. Albiach-Serrano A, Bugnyar T, Call J (2012) Apes (Gorilla gorilla, Pan paniscus, P. troglodytes, Pongo abelii) Versus Corvids (Corvus corax, C. corone) in a support task: the effect of pattern and functionality. J Comp Psychol 126:355–367Google Scholar
  3. Auersperg AMI, Gajdon GK, Huber L (2009) Kea (Nestor notabilis) consider spatial relationships between objects in the support problem. Biol Lett 5:455–458PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bagotskaya MS, Smirnova AA, Zorina ZA (2011) Corvidae can understand logical structure in baited string-pulling tasks. Neurosci Behav Physiol 42:36–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Balasch J, Sabater-Pi J, Padrosa T (1974) Perceptual learning ability in Mandrillus sphinx and Cercopithecus nictitans. Rev Esp Fisiol 30:15–20PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Brainard PP (1930) The mentality of a child compared with that of the apes. J Genet Psychol 37:268–293Google Scholar
  7. Brainard DH (1997) The psychophysics toolbox. Spat Vis 10:433–436PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cha JH, King JE (1969) The learning of patterned strings problems by squirrel monkeys. Anim Behav 17:64–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cole EF, Cram DL, Quinn JL (2011) Individual variation in spontaneous problem-solving performance among wild great tits. Anim Behav 81:491–498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. de Mendonca-Furtado O, Ottoni EB (2008) Learning generalization in problem solving by a blue-fronted parrot (Amazona aestiva). Anim Cogn 11:719–725PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Deaner RO, van Schaik CP, Johnson V (2006) Do some taxa have better domain-general cognition than others? A meta-analysis of nonhuman primate studies. Evol Psychol 4:149–196Google Scholar
  12. Dewsbury DA (2000) Comparative cognition in the 1930s. Psychon Bull Rev 7:267–283PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dücker G, Rensch B (1977) The solution of patterned string problems by birds. Behaviour 62:164–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Emery NJ (2006) Cognitive ornithology: the evolution of avian intelligence. Philos Trans R Soc B361:23–43Google Scholar
  15. Finch G (1941) The solution of patterned string problems by chimpanzees. J Comp Psychol 32:83–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fischer GJ, Kitchener SL (1965) Comparative learning in young gorillas and orang-utans. J Genet Psychol 107:337–348PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Funk MS (2002) Problem solving skills in young yellow-crowned parakeets (Cyanoramphus auriceps). Anim Cogn 5:167–176PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gagne M, Levesque K, Nutile L, Locurto C (2012) Performance on patterned string problems by common marmosets (Callithrix jacchus). Anim Cogn 15:1021–1030PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gesell A (1928) Infancy and human growth. Macmillan, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. Gibson BM, Wasserman EA, Frei L, Miller K (2004) Recent advances in operant conditioning technology: a versatile and affordable computerized touch screen system. Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput 36:355–362PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Halsey LG, Bezerra BM, Souto AS (2006) Can wild common marmosets (Callithrix jacchus) solve the parallel strings task? Anim Cogn 9:229–233PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Harlow HF, Settlage PH (1934) Comparative behavior of primates VII. Capacity of monkeys to solve patterned string tests. J Comp Psychol 18:423–435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hauser MD, Kralik J, Botto-Mahan C (1999) Problem solving and functional design features: experiments on cotton-top tamarins, Saguinus oedipus oedipus. Anim Behav 57:565–582PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Heinrich B, Bugnyar T (2005) Testing problem solving in ravens: string-pulling to reach food. Ethology 111:962–976CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Herrmann E, Wobber V, Call J (2008) Great apes’ (Pan troglodytes, Pan paniscus, Gorilla gorilla, Pongo pygmaeus) understanding of tool functional properties after limited experience. J Comp Psychol 122:220–230PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Huber L, Gajdon GK (2006) Technical intelligence in animals: the kea model. Anim Cogn 9:295–305PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Irie-Sugimoto N, Kobayashi T, Sato T, Hasegawa T (2008) Evidence of means-end behavior in Asian elephants (Elephas maximus). Anim Cogn 11:359–365PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Klüver H (1933) Behavior mechanisms in monkeys. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  29. Mathieson E (1931) A study of problem solving behaviour in pre-school children. Child Dev 2:242–262Google Scholar
  30. Michels KM, Pustek JJ Jr, Johnson JI Jr (1961) The solution of patterned-strings problems by raccoons. J Comp Physiol Psychol 54:433–441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Miyata H, Fujita K (2011) Flexible route selection by pigeons (Columba livia) on a computerized multi-goal navigation task with and without an “obstacle”. J Comp Psychol 125:431–435PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mulcahy NJ, Schubiger MS, Suddendorf T (2012) Orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus and Pongo abelii) understand connectivity in the skewered grape tool task. J Comp PsycholGoogle Scholar
  33. Osthaus B, Lea SEG, Slater AM (2005) Dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) fail to show understanding of means-end connections in a string-pulling task. Anim Cogn 8:37–47PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pelli DG (1997) The VideoToolbox software for visual psychophysics: transforming numbers into movies. Spat Vis 10:437–442PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pepperberg IM (2004) ‘Insightful’ string-pulling in Grey parrots (Psittacus erithacus) is affected by vocal competence. Anim Cogn 7:263–266PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pfuhl G (2012) Two strings to choose from: do ravens pull the easier one? Anim Cogn 15:549–557PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Piaget J (1937) La construction du réel chez l’enfant. Delachaux et Niestlé, ParisGoogle Scholar
  38. Range F, Hentrup M, Virányi Z (2011) Dogs are able to solve a means-end task. Anim Cogn 14:575–583PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Range F, Möslinger H, Virányi Z (2012) Domestication has not affected the understanding of means-end connections in dogs. Anim Cogn 15:597–607PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Richardson HM (1932) The growth of adaptive behavior in infants. Genet Psychol Monogr 12:195–357Google Scholar
  41. Riesen AH, Greenberg B, Granston AS, Fantz RL (1953) Solutions of patterned string problems by young gorillas. J Comp Psychol 46:19–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Schmidt GF, Cook RG (2006) Mind the gap: means-end discrimination by pigeons. Anim Behav 71:599–608CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Schuck-Paim C, Borsari A, Ottoni EB (2009) Means to an end: Neotropical parrots manage to pull strings to meet their goals. Anim Cogn 12:287–301PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Seibt U, Wickler W (2006) Individuality in problem solving: string pulling in two Carduelis species (Aves: Passeriformes). Ethology 112:493–502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Taylor AH, Medina FS, Holzhaider JC, Hearne LJ, Hunt GR, Gray RD (2010) An investigation into the cognition behind spontaneous string pulling in New Caledonian crows. PLoS ONE 5:1–7Google Scholar
  46. Thorpe WH (1964) Learning and instinct in animals. Methuen & Co. Ltd, LondonGoogle Scholar
  47. Tolman EC (1937) The acquisition of string-pulling by rats—conditioned response or sign-gestalt? Psychol Rev 44:195–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Trueblood CK, Smith KU (1934) String-pulling behavior of the cat. J Genet Psychol 44:414–427Google Scholar
  49. Vince MA (1956) String-pulling in birds I. Individual differences in wild adult great tits. Br J Anim Behav 4:111–116Google Scholar
  50. Vince MA (1958) String-pulling in birds II. Differences related to age in greenfinches, chaf-finches and canaries. Anim Behav 6:53–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Vince MA (1961) String-pulling in birds III. The successful response in greenfinches and canaries. Behaviour 17:103–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Warden CJ, Koch AM, Fjeld HA (1940) Solution of patterned string problems by monkeys. Pedagog Semin J Genet Psychol 56:283–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Werdenich D, Huber L (2006) A case of quick problem solving in birds: string-pulling in keas (Nestor notabilis). Anim Behav 71:855–863CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Whitt E, Douglas M, Osthaus B, Hockin I (2009) Domestic cats (Felis catus) do not show causal understanding in a string-pulling task. Anim Cogn 12:739–743PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Willatts P (1999) Development of means-end behavior in young infants: pulling a support to retrieve a distant object. Dev Psychol 35:651–667PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Yocom AM, Boysen ST (2010) Capuchins (Cebus apella) can solve a means-end problem. J Comp Psychol 124:271–277PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Edward A. Wasserman
    • 1
    Email author
  • Yasuo Nagasaka
    • 2
  • Leyre Castro
    • 1
  • Stephen J. Brzykcy
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyThe University of IowaIowa CityUSA
  2. 2.Laboratory for Adaptive IntelligenceBrain Science Institute, RIKENSaitamaJapan

Personalised recommendations