Advertisement

Animal Cognition

, Volume 18, Issue 4, pp 831–837 | Cite as

Abstract-concept learning of difference in pigeons

  • Thomas A. Daniel
  • Anthony A. Wright
  • Jeffrey S. Katz
Original Paper

Abstract

Many species have demonstrated the capacity to learn abstract concepts. Recent studies have shown that the quantity of stimuli used during training plays a critical role in how subjects learn abstract concepts. As the number of stimuli available in the training set increases, so too does performance on novel combinations. The role of set size has been explored with learning the concept of matching and same/different but not with learning the concept of difference. In the present study, pigeons were trained in a non-matching-to-sample task with an initial training set of three stimuli followed by transfer tests to novel stimuli. The training set was progressively doubled eight times with learning and transfer following each expansion. Transfer performance increased from chance level (50 %) at the smallest set size to a level equivalent to asymptotic training performance at the two largest training set sizes (384, 768). This progressive novel-stimulus transfer function of a non-matching (difference) rule is discussed in comparison with results from a similar experiment where pigeons were trained on a matching rule.

Keywords

Non-matching Oddity-from-sample Matching-to-sample Set-size expansion Abstract-concept learning 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We wish to thank Adam M. Goodman, John F. Magnotti, Andrea M. Thompkins, and Kent D. Bodily for their careful assistance in conducting this experiment. Portions of this experiment were used in Thomas A. Daniel’s Masters Thesis.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Ethical standard

This experiment complied with current US law and following the relevant ethical guidelines for animal research (IACUC approved and conducted in AAALAC approved facilities).

References

  1. April LB, Bruce K, Galizio M (2013) The magic number 70 (plus or minus 20): variables determining performance in the rodent odor span task. Learn Motiv 44:143–158PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aust U, Steurer MM (2012) Learning of an oddity rule by pigeons in a four-choice touch-screen procedure. Anim Cogn 16:321–341PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bhatt RS, Wright AA (1992) Concept learning by monkeys with video picture images and a touch screen. J Exp Anal Behav 57:219–225PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bodily KD, Katz JS, Wright AA (2008) Matching-to-sample abstract-concept learning by pigeons. J Exp Psychol Anim B 34:178–184. doi: 10.1037/0097-7403.34.1.178 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bovet D, Vauclair J (2001) Judgment of conceptual identity in monkeys. Psychon Bull Rev 8:470–475PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brown MF, Sayde JM (2013) Same/different discrimination by bumblebee colonies. Anim Cogn 16:117–125PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bukatko D, Daehler MW (2011) Child development: a thematic approach. Wadsworth Publishing Company, BostonGoogle Scholar
  8. Cook RG, Fagot J (2009) First trial rewards promote 1-trial learning and prolonged memory in pigeon and baboon. Proc Natl Acad Sci 106:9530–9533PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Day RL, Coe RL, Kendal JR, Laland KN (2003) Neophilia, innovation and social learning: a study of intergeneric differences in callitrichid monkeys. Anim Behav 65:559–571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gentner D (1988) Metaphor as structure mapping: the relational shift. Child Dev 59:47–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ginsburg N (1957) Matching in pigeons. J Comp Physiol Psychol 50:261–263PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Herman LM, Hovancik JR, Gory JD, Bradshaw GL (1989) Generalization of visual matching by a bottlenosed dolphin (Tursiops truncatus): evidence for invariance of cognitive performance with visual and auditory materials. J Exp Psychol Anim B 15:124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kastak D, Schusterman RJ (1994) Transfer of visual identity matching-to-sample in two california sea lions (Zalophus californianus). Anim Learn Behav 22:427–435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Katz JS, Wright AA (2006) Same/different abstract-concept learning by pigeons. J Exp Psychol Anim B 32:80–86. doi: 10.1037/0097-7403.32.1.80 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Katz JS, Wright AA, Bachevalier J (2002) Mechanisms of same-different abstract-concept learning by rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta). J Exp Psychol Anim B 28:358–368. doi: 10.1037//0097-7403.28.4.358 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Katz JS, Wright AA, Bodily KD (2007) Issues in the comparative cognition of abstract-concept learning. Comp Cogn Behav Rev 2:79–92. doi: 10.3819/ccbr.2008.20005.Issues PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Katz JS, Bodily KD, Wright AA (2008) Learning strategies in matching to sample: if-then and configural learning by pigeons. Behav Process 77:223–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kaulfuß P, Mills DS (2008) Neophilia in domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) and its implication for studies of dog cognition. Anim Cogn 11:553–556PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lazareva OF, Wasserman EA (2010) Category learning and concept learning in birds. In: Mareschal D, Quinn PC, Lea SE (eds) The making of human concepts. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  20. Lombardi CM (2008) Matching and oddity relational learning by pigeons (Columba livia): transfer from color to shape. Anim Cogn 11:67–74. doi: 10.1007/s10071-007-0087-2 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lombardi CM, Fachinelli CC, Delius JD (1984) Oddity of visual patterns conceptualized by pigeons. Anim Learn Behav 12:2–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mishkin M, Delacour J (1975) An analysis of short-term visual memory in the monkey. J Exp Psychol Anim B 1:326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Moon LE, Harlow HF (1955) Analysis of oddity learning by rhesus monkeys. J Comp Physciol Psychol 48:188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Pepperberg IM (1987) Acquisition of the same/different concept by an African Grey parrot (Psittacus erithacus): learning with respect to categories of color, shape, and material. Anim Learn Behav 15:423–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Piaget J, Inhelder B (1969) The psychology of the child (trans: Weaver H). Basic Books, New York (Original work published 1966)Google Scholar
  26. 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. Erlbuam, Hillsdale, pp 423–451Google Scholar
  27. Premack D (1983) The codes of man and beasts. Behav Brain Sci 6:125–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Schmidtke KA, Katz JS, Wright AA (2010) Differential outcomes facilitate same/different concept learning. Anim Cogn 13:583–589PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Thompson RKR (1995) Natural and relational concepts in animals. In: Roitblat H, Meyer JA (eds) Comparative approaches to cognitive science. Bradford, MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  30. Urcuioli PJ (1977) Transfer of oddity-from-sample performance in pigeons. J Exp Anal Behav 25:195–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. von Fersen L, Delius JD (1989) Long-term retention of many visual patterns by pigeons. Ethology 82:141–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wasserman EA, DeVolder CL, Coppage DJ (1992) Non-similarity-based conceptualization in pigeons via secondary or mediated generalization. Psychol Sci 3(6):374–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wasserman EA, Hugar JA, Kirkpatrick-Steger K (1995) Pigeons show same-different conceptualization after training with complex visual stimuli. J Exp Psychol Anim B 21(3):248–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wasserman EA, Fagot J, Young ME (2001) Same–different conceptualization by baboons (Papio papio): the role of entropy. J Comp Psychol 115(1):42PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wilson B, Mackintosh NJ, Boakes RA (1985) Matching and oddity learning in the pigeon: transfer effects and the absence of relational learning. J Exp Psychol 37:295–311. doi: 10.1080/14640748508401172 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wright AA (1997) Concept learning and learning strategies. Psychol Sci 8:119–123. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.1997.tb00693.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wright AA, Delius JD (2005) Learning processes in matching and oddity: the oddity preference effect and sample reinforcement. J Exp Psychol Anim B 31:425–432. doi: 10.1037/0097-7403.31.4.425 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wright AA, Katz JS (2006) Mechanisms of same/different concept learning in primates and avians. Behav Process 72:234–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wright AA, Katz JS (2007) Generalization hypothesis of abstract-concept learning: learning strategies and related issues in Macaca mulatta, Cebus apella, and Columba livia. J Comp Psychol 121:387PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wright AA, Lickteig MT (2010) What is learned when concept learning fails? A theory of restricted-domain relational learning. Learn Motiv 41:273–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wright AA, Rivera JJ, Katz JS, Bachevalier J (2003) Abstract-concept learning and list-memory processing by capuchin and rhesus monkeys. J Exp Psychol Anim B 29:184–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Zentall TR, Hogan DE (1974) Abstract concept learning in the pigeon. J Exp Psychol 102:393–398. doi: 10.1037/h0035970 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Zentall TR, Edwards CA, Moore BS, Hogan DE (1981) Identity: the basis for both matching and oddity learning in pigeons. J Exp Psychol Anim B 7:70–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas A. Daniel
    • 1
  • Anthony A. Wright
    • 2
  • Jeffrey S. Katz
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyAuburn UniversityAuburnUSA
  2. 2.Medical School: Neurobiology and AnatomyUniversity of Texas Health Science CenterHoustonUSA

Personalised recommendations