Skip to main content
Download PDF

Dynamic object recognition in pigeons and humans

Learning & Behavior volume 34, pages 215–228 (2006)Cite this article

Abstract

We investigated the role of dynamic information in human and pigeon object recognition. Both species were trained to discriminate between two objects that each had a characteristic motion, so that either cue could be used to perform the task successfully. The objects were either easy or difficult to decompose into parts. At test, the learned objects could appear in their learned motions, the reverse of the learned motions, or an entirely new motion, or a new object could appear in one of the learned motions. For humans, any change in the learned motion produced a decrement in performance for both the decomposable and the nondecomposable objects, but participants did not respond differentially to new objects that appeared in the learned motions. Pigeons showed the same pattern of responding as did humans for the decomposable objects, except that pigeons responded differentially to new objects in the learned motions. For the nondecomposable objects, pigeons used motion cues exclusively. We suggest that for some types of objects, dynamic information may be weighted differently by pigeons and humans.

References

  • Biederman, I. (1987). Recognition-by-components: A theory of human image understanding.Psychological Review,94, 115–147.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biederman, I., &Gerhardstein, P. C. (1993). Recognizing depthrotated objects: Evidence and conditions for three-dimensional viewpoint invariance.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,19, 1162–1182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bischof, W. F., Reid, S. L., Wylie, D. R. W., &Spetch, M. L. (1999). Perception of coherent motion in random dot displays by pigeons and humans.Perception & Psychophysics,61, 1089–1101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blough, P. M. (2001). Cognitive strategies and foraging in pigeons. In R. G. Cook (Ed.),Avian visual cognition [Online]. Available at www.pigeon.psy.tufts.edu/avc/pblough.

  • Bülthoff, H. H., &Edelman, S. (1992). Psychophysical support for a two-dimensional view interpolation theory of object recognition.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,89, 60–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cavanagh, P., Labianca, A. T., &Thornton, I. M. (2001). Attention-based visual routines: Sprites.Cognition,80, 47–60.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chuang, L. L., Vuong, Q. C., Thornton, I. M., & Bülthoff, H. H. (2005, August).Sequence selectivity of form transformation in visual object recognition. Poster presented at the 28th European Conference on Visual Perception, A Coruña, Spain.

  • Cook, R. G., &Katz, J. S. (1999). Dynamic object perception by pigeons.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,25, 194–210.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cook, R. G., Shaw, R., &Blaisdell, A. P. (2001). Dynamic object perception by pigeons: Discrimination of action in video presentations.Animal Cognition,4, 137–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dittrich, W. H., Lea, S. E. G., Barrett, J., &Gurr, P. R. (1998). Categorization of natural movements by pigeons: Visual concept discrimination and biological motion.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,70, 281–299.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edelman, S. (1999).Representation and recognition in vision. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, A., Spetch, M. L., &Ferrey, A. (2005). Recognition by humans and pigeons of novel views of 3-D objects and their photographs.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,134, 149–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giese, M. A., &Poggio, T. (2003). Neural mechanisms for the recognition of biological movements.Nature Reviews Neuroscience,4, 179–192.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayward, W. G., &Williams, P. (2000). Viewpoint dependence and object discriminability.Psychological Science,11, 7–12.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Husband, S., & Shimizu, T. (2001). Evolution of the avian visual system. In R. G. Cook (Ed.),Avian visual cognition [Online]. Available at www.pigeon.psy.tufts.edu/avc/pblough.

  • Jitsumori, M., &Makino, H. (2004). Recognition of static and dynamic images of depth-rotated human faces by pigeons.Learning & Behavior,32, 145–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knappmeyer, B., Thornton, I. M., &Bülthoff, H. H. (2003). The use of facial motion and facial form during the processing of identity.Vision Research,43, 1921–1936.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lander, K., &Bruce, V. (2000). Recognizing famous faces: Exploring the benefits of facial motion.Ecological Psychology,12, 259–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, T., &Cooper, L. A. (2003). Explicit and implicit memory for rotating objects.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,29, 554–562.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loftus, G. R., &Masson, M. E. J. (1994). Using confidence intervals in within-subject designs.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,1, 476–490.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newell, F. N., Wallraven, C., &Huber, S. (2004). The role of characteristic motion in object categorization.Journal of Vision,4, 118–129.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peissig, J. J., Wasserman, E. A., Young, M. E., &Biederman, I. (2002). Learning an object from multiple views enhances its recognition in an orthogonal rotational axis in pigeons.Vision Research,42, 2051–2062.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spetch, M. L., &Friedman, A. (2003). Recognizing rotated views of objects: Interpolation versus generalization by humans and pigeons.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,10, 135–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spetch, M. L., &Friedman, A. (2006). Comparative cognition of object recognition.Comparative Cognition & Behavior Reviews,1, 12–35. Available at www.comparativecognition.org/.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spetch, M. L., Friedman, A., &Reid, S. L. (2001). The effect of distinctive parts on recognition of depth-rotated objects by pigeons (Columba livia) and humans.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,130, 238–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stone, J. V. (1998). Object recognition using spatiotemporal signatures.Vision Research,38, 947–951.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stone, J. V. (1999). Object recognition: View-specificity and motionspecificity.Vision Research,39, 4032–4044.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tarr, M. J., &Pinker, S. (1989). Mental rotation and orientation dependence in shape recognition.Cognitive Psychology,21, 233–282.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thornton, I. M., &Kourtzi, Z. (2002). A matching advantage for dynamic human faces.Perception,31, 113–132.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Troje, N. F. (2002). Decomposing biological motion: A framework for analysis and synthesis of human gait patterns.Journal of Vision,2, 371–387.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vuong, Q. C., &Tarr, M. J. (2004). Rotation direction affects object recognition.Vision Research,44, 1717–1730.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vuong, Q. C., &Tarr, M. J. (2006). Structural similarity and spatiotemporal noise effects on learning dynamic novel objects.Perception,35, 497–510.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wallach, H., &O'Connell, D. N. (1953). The kinetic depth effect.Journal of Experimental Psychology,45, 205–217.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wasserman, E. A., Gagliardi, J. L., Cook, B. R., Kirkpatrick-Steger, K., Astley, S. L., &Biederman, I. (1996). The pigeon's recognition of drawings of depth-rotated stimuli.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,22, 205–221.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeigler, H. P., &Bischof, H. J. (1993).Vision, brain, and behavior in Birds. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, University of Alberta, T6G 2E9, Edmonton, AB, Canada

    Marcia L. Spetch & Alinda Friedman

  2. Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics, Tübingen, Germany

    Quoc C. Vuong

Authors
  1. Marcia L. Spetch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alinda Friedman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Quoc C. Vuong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marcia L. Spetch.

Additional information

This research was supported by grants from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada and by the Max Planck Society.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Spetch, M.L., Friedman, A. & Vuong, Q.C. Dynamic object recognition in pigeons and humans. Learning & Behavior 34, 215–228 (2006). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03192877

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03192877

Keywords

  • Test Trial
  • Respon Ding
  • Decomposable Object
  • Uter Screen