Animal Learning & Behavior

, Volume 29, Issue 2, pp 97–106 | Cite as

Discrimination of geons by pigeons: The effects of variations in surface depiction

Article
  • 177 Downloads

Abstract

We explored how changes in the depiction of the surface features of a simple volume (a geon) affected the pigeon’s recognition performance. Pigeons were trained to make a different keypeck response to each of four computer-rendered single-geon objects. In Experiment 1, the pigeons were tested with images of the original stimuli in which the light source was shifted from its original position, as well as with silhouettes and line drawings of these objects. All three types of stimulus variations resulted in marked drops in performance: above chance for silhouettes and light-change stimuli, but at chance for line drawings. In Experiment 2, the pigeons were tested with images of the original stimuli in which the contrast levels were either increased or decreased. These transformations resulted in very small drops in performance (except for the complete absence of contrast-a silhouette). These results indicated that the pigeons attended to the shape of the outside contour of an object and to the relative brightness of an object’s surface contours.

References

  1. Bhatt, R. S., &Wasserman, E. A. (1989). Secondary generalization and categorization in pigeons.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,52, 213–224.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Biederman, I. (1987). Recognition-by-components: A theory of human image understanding.Psychological Review,94, 115–147.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Biederman, I. (1988). Aspects and extensions of a theory of human image understanding. In Z. Pylyshyn (Ed.),Computational processes in human vision (pp. 370–428). New York: Ablex.Google Scholar
  4. Biederman, I., &Bar, M. (1999). One-shot viewpoint invariance in matching novel objects.Vision Research,39, 2885–2899.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Biederman, I., &Ju, G. (1988). Surface versus edge-base determinants of visual recognition.Cognitive Psychology,20, 38–64.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Cabe, P.A. (1976). Transfer of discrimination from solid objects to pictures by pigeons: A test of theoretical models of pictorial perception.Perception & Psychophysics,19, 545–550.Google Scholar
  7. Cerella, J. (1977). Absence of perspective processing in the pigeon.Pattern Recognition,9, 66–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cerella, J. (1990). Shape constancy in the pigeon: The perspective transformations decomposed. In M. L. Commons et al. (Eds.),Behavioral approaches to pattern recognition and concept formation (Quantitative Analyses of Behavior, Vol. 8, pp. 145–163). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  9. Cook, R. G., &Katz, J. S. (1999). Dynamic object perception by pigeons.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,25, 194–210.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Cook, R. G., Wright, A. A., &Kendrick, D. F. (1990). Visual categorization by pigeons. In M. L. Commons et al. (Eds.),Behavioral approaches to pattern recognition and concept formation (Quantitative Analyses of Behavior, Vol. 8, pp. 187–214). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  11. Delius, J. D. (1992). Categorical discrimination of objects and pictures by pigeons.Animal Learning & Behavior,20, 301–311.Google Scholar
  12. Delius, J. D., &Hollard, V. D. (1995). Orientation invariant pattern recognition by pigeons (Columba livia) and humans (Homo sapiens).Journal of Comparative Psychology,109, 278–290.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Fetterman, J. G. (1996). Dimensions of stimulus complexity.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,22, 3–18.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Hayward, W.G. (1998). Effects of outline shape in object recognition.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,24, 427–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hollard, V.D., &Delius, J. D. (1982). Rotational invariance in visual pattern recognition by pigeons and humans.Science,218, 804–806.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Jitsumori, M., &Yoshihara, M. (1997). Categorical discrimination of human facial expressions by pigeons: A test of the linear feature model.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,50B, 253–268.Google Scholar
  17. Kirkpatrick-Steger, K., &Wasserman, E. A. (1996). The what and where of the pigeon’s processing of complex visual stimuli.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,22, 60–67.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Lombardi, C. M., &Delius, J. D. (1988). Pattern recognition invariance in pigeons (Columba livia).International Journal of Comparative Psychology,2, 83–102.Google Scholar
  19. Lombardi, C.M., &Delius, J. D. (1990). Size invariance in visual pattern recognition by pigeons. In M. L. Commons et al. (Eds.),Behavioral approaches to pattern recognition and concept formation (Quantitative Analyses of Behavior, Vol. 8, pp. 41–65). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  20. Lumsden, E. A. (1977). Generalization of an operant response to photographs and drawings/silhouettes of a three-dimensional object at various orientations.Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society,10, 405–407.Google Scholar
  21. Newell, F. N., &Findlay, J. M. (1997). The effect of depth rotation on object identification.Perception,26, 1231–1257.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Peissig, J. J., Young, M.E., Wasserman, E., &Biederman, I. (1999a). The pigeon’s perception of depth-rotated shapes.Cahiers de Psychologie Cognitive,18, 657–690.Google Scholar
  23. Peissig, J. J.,Young, M. E.,Wasserman, E. A., &Biederman, I. (1999b, November).Stimulus size and the pigeon’s ability to recognize objects. Poster presented at the 40th Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
  24. Peissig, J. J., Young, M. E., Wasserman, E. A., &Biederman, I. (2000). Seeing things from a different angle: The pigeon’s recognition of single geons rotated in depth.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,26, 115–132.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Reid, S. L., &Spetch, M. L. (1998). Perception of pictorial depth cues by pigeons.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,5, 698–704.Google Scholar
  26. Sekuler, A. B., Lee, J. A. J., &Shettleworth, S. J. (1996). Pigeons do not complete partly occluded figures.Perception,25, 1109–1120.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Tarr, M. J., Bülthoff, H. H., Zabinski, M., &Blanz, V. (1997). To what extent do unique parts influence recognition across changes in viewpoint?American Psychological Society,8, 282–288.Google Scholar
  28. Tarr, M. J., Kersten, D., &Bülthoff, H. H. (1998). Why the visual recognition system might encode the effects of illumination.Vision Research,38, 2259–2275.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Wasserman, E. A., Gagliardi, J. L., Cook, B. R., Astley, S. L., Kirkpatrick-Steger, K., &Biederman, I. (1996). The pigeon’s recognition of drawings of depth-rotated stimuli.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,22, 205–221.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Wasserman, E. A., Kirkpatrick-Steger, K., Van Hamme, L. J., &Biederman, I. (1993). Pigeons are sensitive to the spatial organization of complex visual stimuli.Psychological Science,4, 336–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Southern CaliforniaLos Angeles
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyUniversity of IowaIowa City

Personalised recommendations