Animal Learning & Behavior

, Volume 29, Issue 2, pp 107–119 | Cite as

The role of item- and category-specific information in the discrimination of people versus nonpeople images by pigeons

Article

Abstract

Herrnstein and Loveland (1964, pp. 549–551) successfully trained pigeons to discriminate pictures showing humans from pictures that did not. In the present study, a go/no-go procedure was employed to replicate and extend their findings, the primary focus of concern being to reevaluate the role of item- and category-specific information. The pigeons readily acquired the discrimination and were also able to generalize to novel instances of the two classes (Experiment 1). Classification of scrambled versions of the stimuli was based on small and local features, rather than on configural and global features (Experiment 2). The presentation of gray-scale stimuli indicated that color was important for classifying novel stimuli and recognizing familiar ones (Experiments 1 and 2). Finally, the control that could possibly be exerted by irrelevant background features was investigated by presenting the pigeons with images of persons contained in former person-absent pictures (Experiment 3). Classification was found to be controlled by both item- and category- specific features, but only in pigeons that were reinforced on person-present pictures was the latter type of information given precedence over the former.

References

  1. Blough, D. S. (1982). Pigeon perception of letters of the alphabet.Science,218, 397–398.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Bottjer, S. W., &Hearst, E. (1979). Food delivery as a conditional stimulus: Feature-learning and memory in pigeons.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,31, 189–207.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Cerella, J. (1980). The pigeon’s analysis of pictures.Pattern Recognition,12, 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cook, R. G., Wright, A. A., &Kendrick, D. F. (1990). Visual categorization by pigeons. In M. L. Commons, R. J. Herrnstein, S. M. Kosslyn & D. B. Mumford (Eds.),Quantitative analyses of behavior (Vol. 8, pp. 187–214). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  5. D’Amato, M. R., &Van Sant, P. (1988). The person concept in monkeys (Cebus apella).Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,14, 43–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Edwards, A., &Honig, W. K. (1987). Memorization and “feature selection” in the acquisition of natural concepts in pigeons.Learning & Motivation,18, 235–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fetterman, J. G. (1996). Dimensions of stimulus complexity.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,22, 3–18.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Flannagan, M. J., Fried, L. S., &Holyoak, K. J. (1986). Distributional expectations and the induction of category structure.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,12, 241–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Greene, S. (1983). Feature memorization in pigeon concept formation. In M. L. Commons, R. J. Herrnstein, & A. R. Wagner (Eds.),Quantitative analysis of behavior (Vol. 4, pp. 209–229). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.Google Scholar
  10. Hearst, E. (1978). Stimulus selection and feature selection in learning and behavior. In S. Hulse, H. Fowler, & W. K. Honig (Eds.),Cognitive processes in animal behavior. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  11. Herrnstein, R. J., &Loveland, D.H. (1964). Complex visual concept in the pigeon.Science,146, 549–551.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Herrnstein, R. J., Loveland, D.H., &Cable, C. (1976). Natural concepts in pigeons.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,2, 285–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Honig, W. K., &Urcuioli, P. J. (1981). The legacy of Guttman and Kalish (1956): 25 years of research on stimulus generalization.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,26, 405–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Huber, L. (1994). Amelioration of laboratory conditions for pigeons (Columba livia).Animal Welfare,3, 321–324.Google Scholar
  15. Huber, L., Aust, U., Michelbach, G., Ölzant, S., &Nowotny, R. (1999). Limits of symmetry conceptualization in pigeons.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,52B, 351–379.Google Scholar
  16. Huber, L., &Lenz, R. (1993). A test of the linear feature model of polymorphous concept discrimination with pigeons.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,46B, 1–18.Google Scholar
  17. Jacobs, G.H. (1993). The distribution and nature of color vision among the mammals.Biological Review,68, 413–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jenkins, H. M., &Sainsbury, R. S. (1969). The development of stimulus control through differential reinforcement. In N. J. Mackintosh & W. K. Honig (Eds.),Fundamental issues in associative learning. Halifax, NS: Dalhousie University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Jenkins, H.M., &Sainsbury, R. S. (1970). Discrimination learning with the distinctive feature on positive or negative trials. In D. Mostovsky (Ed.),Attention: Contemporary theory and analysis (pp.239–2744). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
  20. Jitsumori, M. (1996). A prototype effect and categorization of artificial polymorphous stimuli in pigeons.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,22, 405–419.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Lea, S. E. G. (1984). In what sense do pigeons learn concepts? In H. L. Roitblat, T. G. Bever, & H. S. Terrace (Eds.),Animal cognition (pp. 263–276). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  22. Lea, S. E.G., Lohmann, A., &Ryan, C. M. E. (1993). Discrimination of five-dimensional stimuli by pigeons: Limitations of feature analysis.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,46, 19–42.Google Scholar
  23. Lubow, R. E. (1974). Higher-order concept formation in the pigeon.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,21, 475–483.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Malott, R. W., &Siddall, J. W. (1972). Acquisition of the people concept in pigeons.Psychological Reports,31, 3–13.Google Scholar
  25. Manabe, K., &Kawashima, T. (1982). The feature-positive effect based on positional discrimination in pigeons.Annual of Animal Psychology,31, 89–102.Google Scholar
  26. Medin, D. L., Dewey, G. I., &Murphy, T.D. (1983). Relationships between item and category learning: Evidence that abstraction is not automatic.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,9, 607–625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mollon, J. D. (1989). “Tho’ she kneel’d in that place where they grew ....”Journal of Experimental Biology,146, 21–38.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Monen, J., Brenner, E., &Reynaerts, J. (1998). What does a pigeon see in a Picasso?Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,69, 223–226.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Mostofsky, D. (1965).Stimulus generalization. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Pace, G.M., McCoy, D. F., &Nallan, G. B. (1980). Feature-positive and feature-negative learning in the Rhesus monkey and pigeon.American Journal of Psychology,93, 409–427.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Palmer, S. E. (1999).Vision science: Photons to phenomenology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  32. Poole, J., &Lander, D. G. (1971). The pigeon’s concept of pigeon.Psychonomic Science,25, 157–158.Google Scholar
  33. Restle, F. (1957). Theory of selective learning, with probable reinforcement.Psychological Review,64, 182–191.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Sainsbury, R. S. (1971). Effect of proximity of elements on the featurepositive effect.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,16, 315–325.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Sainsbury, R. S., &Jenkins, H. M. (1967). Feature-positive effect in discrimination learning.Proceedings of the Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association,2, 17–18.Google Scholar
  36. Siegel, R. K., &Honig, W. K. (1970). Pigeon concept formation: Successive and simultaneous acquisition.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,13, 385–390.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Theeuwes, J. (1996). Parallel search for a conjunction of color and orientation: The effect of spatial proximity.Acta Psychologica,94, 291–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Treisman, A.M., &Gelade, G. (1980). A feature integration theory of attention.Cognitive Psychology,12, 97–136.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Troje, N. F., Huber, L., Loidolt, M., Aust, U., &Fieder, M. (1999). Categorical learning in pigeons: The role of texture and shape in complex static stimuli.Vision Research,39, 353–366.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Vaughan, W. J., &Greene, S. L. (1984). Pigeon visual memory capacity.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,10, 256–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wasserman, E. A., Kiedinger, R. E., &Bhatt, R. S. (1988). Conceptual behavior in pigeons: Categories, subcategories, and pseudocategories.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,14, 235–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wurm, L. H., Legge, G. E., Isenberg, L. M., &Luebker, A. (1993). Color improves object recognition in normal and low vision.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,19, 899–911.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of ZoologyUniversity of ViennaViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations