Skip to main content
Log in

A harbor seal can transfer the same/different concept to new stimulus dimensions

Animal Cognition Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We investigated the formation of an abstract concept of same/different in a harbor seal by means of a two-item same/different task. Stimuli were presented on a TFT monitor. The subject was trained to respond according to whether two horizontally aligned white shapes presented on a black background were the same, or different from each other, by giving a no-go or go response. Training comprised of four stages. First, the same/different task was trained with two shapes forming two same problems (A–A and B–B) and two different problems (A–B and B–A). After the learning criterion was reached, training proceeded with new pairs of shapes. In the second experimental stage, every problem was presented just five times before new problems were introduced. We showed that training to criterion with just two shapes resulted in item-specific learning, whereas reducing the number of presentations to five per problem led to the formation of a same/different learning set as well as some restricted relational learning. Training with trial-unique problems in the third stage of this study resulted in the formation of an abstract concept of same/different which was indicated by a highly significant performance in transfer tests with 120 novel problems. Finally, extra-dimensional transfer of the concept was tested. The harbor seal showed a significantly correct performance on transfer tests with 30 unfamiliar pattern and 60 unfamiliar brightness same/different problems, thus demonstrating that the concept is not restricted to the shape dimension originally learned, but can be generalized across stimulus dimensions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

References

  • April BL, Bruce K, Galizio M (2011) Matching- and nonmatching-to-sample concept learning in rats using olfactory stimuli. J Exp Anal Behav 96(2):139–154

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bodily KD, Katz JS, Wright AA (2008) Matching-to-sample abstract-concept learning by pigeons. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 34(1):178–184

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bovet D, Vauclair J (2001) Judgment on conceptual identity in monkeys. Psychon Bull Rev 8(3):470–475

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Carter DE, Werner AA (1978) Complex learning and information processing by pigeons: a critical analysis. J Exp Anal Behav 29:565–601

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • D’Amato MR, Salmon DP, Colombo M (1985) Extent and limits of the matching concept in monkeys (Cebus apella). J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 11:35–51

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Delius JD, Delius JAM (2006) Intelligence and brains: an evolutionary bird’s eye view. In: Zentall TR, Wasserman EA (eds) Handbook of comparative cognition. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Elmore LC, Wright AA, Rivera JJ (2009) Individual differences: either relational learning or item-specific learning in a same/different task. Learn Behav 37(2):204–213

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gellermann LW (1933) Chance orders of alternating stimuli in visual discrimination experiments. J Genet Psychol 42:206–208

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanke FD, Dehnhardt G (2009) Aerial visual acuity in harbor seals (Phoca vitulina) as a function of ambient luminance. J Comp Physiol A 195(7):643–650

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harlow HF (1949) The formation of learning sets. Psychol Rev 56:51–65

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Herman LM, Hovancik JR, Gory JD, Bradshaw GL (1989) Generalization of visual matching by a bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus): evidence for invariance of cognitive performance with visual and auditory materials. J Exp Psychol 15(2):124–136

    Google Scholar 

  • Hille P, Dehnhardt G, Mauck B (2006) An analysis of visual oddity concept learning in a California sea lion (Zalophus californianus). Learn Behav 34(2):144–153

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson WJ, Pegram GV (1970) Comparison of intra- vs. extradimensional transfer of matching by rhesus monkeys. Psychon Sci 19:162–163

    Google Scholar 

  • Kastak CR, Schusterman RJ (1994) Transfer of visual identity matching-to-sample in two California sea lions (Zalophus californianus). Anim Learn Behav 22(4):427–435

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kastak CR, Schusterman RJ (2002) Sea lions and equivalence: expanding classes by exclusion. J Exp Anal Behav 78(3):449–465

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Katz JS, Wright AA, Bachevalier J (2002) Mechanisms of same/different abstract-concept learning by rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta). J Exp Psychol 28(4):358–368

    Google Scholar 

  • Lashley KS (1938) Conditional reactions in the rat. JRL 6:311–324

    Google Scholar 

  • Levine M (1965) Hypothesis behavior. In: Schrier AM, Harlow HF, Stollnitz F (eds) Behavior of nonhuman primates, vol 1. Academic Press, New York, pp 97–127

    Google Scholar 

  • Lombardi CM (2008) Matching and oddity relational learning by pigeons (Columba livia): transfer from color to shape. Anim Cogn 11:67–74

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mauck B, Dehnhardt G (2005) Identity concept formation during visual multiple choice matching in a harbor seal (Phoca vitulina). Learn Behav 33(4):428–436

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mercado E III, Deirdre A, Killebrew DA, Pack AA, Mácha IVB, Herman LM (2000) Generalization of ‘same–different’ classification abilities in bottlenosed dolphins. Behav Process 50:79–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noble CS, Thomas RK (1970) Oddity learning in the squirrel monkey. Psychon Sci 19(5):305–307

    Google Scholar 

  • Oden DL, Premack D, Thompson RKR (1988) Spontaneous transfer of matching by infant chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 14(2):140–145

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pena T, Pitts RC, Galizio M (2006) Identity matching to sample with olfactory stimuli in rats. J Exp Anal Behav 85(2):203–221

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pepperberg IM (1987) Acquisition of the same/different concept by African grey parrot (Psittacus erithacus): learning with respect to categories of color, shape, and material. Anim Learn Behav 15(4):423–432

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piaget J, Inhelder B (1969) The psychology of the child, vol 2. Basic Books, Inc., New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Premack D (1978) On the abstractness of human concepts: Why it would be difficult to talk to a pigeon. In: Hulse SH, Fowler H, Honig WK (eds) Cognitive processes in animal behavior. Erlbaum, Hillsdale

    Google Scholar 

  • Premack D (1983) Animal cognition. Annu Rev Psychol 34:351–362

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scholtyssek C, Kelber A, Dehnhardt G (2008) Brightness discrimination in the harbor seal (Phoca vitulina). Vision Res 48(1):96–103

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schusterman RJ, Kastak D (2002) Problem solving and memory. In: Hoelzel AR (ed) Marine mammal biology. Blackwell, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Schusterman RJ, Reichmuth JC, Kastak D (2000) How animals classify friends and foes. CDPS 9(1):1–6

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas RK, Boyd MG (1973) A comparison of Cebus albifrons and Saiiniri siiurcus on oddity performance. Anim Learn Behav 1(2):151–153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas RK, Kerr RS (1976) Conceptual conditional discrimination in Samiri scriureus. Anim Learn Behav 4(3):333–336

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas RK, Noble M (1988) Visual and olfactory oddity learning in rats: what evidence is necessary to show conceptual behavior? Anim Learn Behav 16(2):157–163

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson RKR (1995) Natural and relational concepts in animals. In: Roitblat HL, Meyer J (eds) Comparative approaches to cognitive science. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 176–222

    Google Scholar 

  • Truppa V, Garofoli D, Castorina G, Piano Mortari E, Natale F, Visalberghi E (2011a) Identity concept learning in matching-to-sample tasks by tufted capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella). Anim Cognit 13:835–848

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Truppa V, Mortari EP, Garofoli D, Privitera S, Visalberghi E (2011b) Same/Different concept learning by capuchin monkeys in matching-to-sample tasks. PLoS ONE 6(8):e23809

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wright AA, Katz JS (2006) Mechanisms of same/different concept learning in primates and avians. Behav Process 72(3):234–254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright AA, Katz JS (2009) A case for restricted-domain relational learning. Psychon Bull Rev 16(5):907–913

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wright AA, Cook RG, Rivera JJ, Sands SF (1988) Concept learning by pigeons: matching-to-sample with trial-unique video picture stimuli. Anim Learn Behav 16(4):436–444

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zentall TR, Hogan DE (1978) Same/different concept learning in the pigeon: the effect of negative instances and prior adaptation to transfer stimuli. J Exp Anal Behav 30:177–186

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors’ research has been supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, by grants of the VolkswagenStiftung (SFB 509) to GD, by grants of the Royal Physiographical Society, Lund to AK and GD as well as by grants of the Swedish Research Council Stockholm to AK. We thank the unknown referees for their constructive suggestions that considerably improved our manuscript. The experiments were carried out in accordance with the European Communities Council Directive of November 24, 1986 (86/609/EEC).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Guido Dehnhardt.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Scholtyssek, C., Kelber, A., Hanke, F.D. et al. A harbor seal can transfer the same/different concept to new stimulus dimensions. Anim Cogn 16, 915–925 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-013-0624-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-013-0624-0

Keywords

Navigation