Abstract
We tested a California sea lion for visual oddity learning by presenting problems composed of three two-dimensional black-and-white stimuli, two identical (S−) and one different (S+). In the first experimental stage, a single problem per session was presented until learning criterion was reached. In the second experimental stage, all problems were presented only five times in succession; then a new problem was introduced (six problems/session). In the third experimental stage, each problem was presented only once. The sea lion mastered all stages of oddity learning. A final transfer test with oddity problems composed of completely new stimuli yielded performance significantly above chance. Data analyses suggested learning of specific stimulus properties in the first stage, learning set formation in the second stage, but oddity conceptualization in the third stage.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Bailey, A. M., &Thomas, R. K. (1998). An investigation of oddity concept learning in rats.Psychological Record,48, 333–344.
Barsalou, L. W. (1992).Cognitive psychology: An overview for cognitive scientists. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bourne, L. E. (1970). Knowing and using concepts.Psychological Review,77, 546–556.
Bowen, W. D., Read, A. J., &Estes, J. A. (2002). Feeding ecology. In A. R. Hoelzel (Ed.),Marine mammal biology: An evolutionary approach (pp. 217–246). Oxford: Blackwell.
Boyd, I. L. (1993).Marine mammals: Advances in behavioural and population biology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, Clarendon Press.
Delius, J. D. (1994). Comparative cognition of identity. In P. Bertelson, P. Eelen, & G. d’Ydewalle (Eds.),International perspectives on psychological science: Vol. 1. Leading themes (pp. 25–40). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Domjan, M. (1998).The principles of learning and behavior. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Fodor, J. A. (1998).Concepts: Where cognitive science went wrong. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gagné, R. M. (1970).The conditions of learning. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Gellerman, L. W. (1933). Chance orders of alternating stimuli in visual discrimination experiments.Journal of Genetic Psychology,42, 206–208.
Godin, J.-G. J. (1997). Evading predators. In J.-G. J. Godin (Ed.),Behavioural ecology of teleost fishes (pp. 191–236). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kastak, D. A., &Schusterman, R. J. (1992). Comparative cognition in marine mammals: A clarification on match-to-sample tests.Marine Mammal Science,8, 414–417.
Kastak, D. [A.], &Schusterman, R. J. (1994). Transfer of visual identity matching-to-sample in two California sea lions (Zalophus californianus).Animal Learning & Behavior,22, 427–435.
King, J. E., &Fobes, J. L. (1975). Hypothesis analysis of sameness-difference learning-set by capuchin monkeys.Learning & Motivation,6, 101–113.
Koffka, K. (1935). Principles of Gestalt psychology. New York: Harcourt, Brace.
Landeau, L., &Terborgh, J. (1986). Oddity and the “confusion effect” in predation.Animal Behaviour,34, 1372–1380.
Lombardi, C. M., Fachinelli, C. C., &Delius, J. D. (1984). Oddity of visual patterns conceptualized by pigeons.Animal Learning & Behavior,12,2–66.
Mauck, B., &Dehnhardt, G. (1997). Mental rotation in a California sea lion (Zalophus californianus).Journal of Experimental Biology,200, 1309–1326.
Mauck, B., &Dehnhardt, G. (2005). Identity concept formation during visual multiple-choice matching in a harbor seal (Phoca vitulina).Learning & Behavior,33, 428–436.
McRobert, S. P., &Bradner, J. (1998). The influence of body coloration on shoaling preferences in fish.Animal Behaviour,56, 611–615.
Medin, D. L. (1989). Concepts and conceptual structure.American Psychologist,44, 1469–1481.
Medin, D. L., &Coley, J. D. (1998). Concepts and categorization. In J. Hochberg (Ed.),Perception and cognition at century’s end: History, philosophy, theory (pp. 402–432). San Diego: Academic Press.
Mueller, H. C. (1975). Hawks select odd prey.Science,188, 953–954.
Nissen, H. W., Blum, J. S., &Blum, R. A. (1948). Analysis of matching behavior in chimpanzee.Journal of Comparative & Physiological Psychology,41, 62–74.
Oden, D. L., Thompson, R. K., &Premack, D. (1990). Infant chimpanzees spontaneously perceive both concrete and abstract same/different relations.Child Development,61, 621–631.
Pack, A. A., Herman, L. M., &Roitblat, H. L. (1991). Generalization of visual matching and delayed matching by a California sea lion (Zalophus californianus).Animal Learning & Behavior,19, 37–48.
Parish, J. K., Strand, S. W., &Lott, J. L. (1989). Predation on a school of flat-iron herring,Harengula thrissina.Copeia,1989, 1089–1091.
Pisacreta, R., Lefave, P., Lesneski, T., &Potter, C. (1985). Transfer of oddity learning in the pigeon.Animal Learning & Behavior,13, 403–414.
Poucet, B., Buhot-Averseng, M. C., &Thinus-Blanc, C. (1983). Food-searching behavior of cats in a multiple-choice elimination problem.Learning & Motivation,14, 140–153.
Rensch, B. (1973).Gedächtnis, Begriffsbildung und Planhandlungen bei Tieren. Berlin: Paul Parey.
Roitblat, H. L., &Fersen, L. von (1992). Comparative cognition: Representations and processes in learning and memory.Annual Review of Psychology,43, 671–710.
Rosch, E. (1978). Principles of categorization. In E. Rosch & B. B. Lloyd (Eds.),Cognition and categorization (pp. 27–48). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Schusterman, R. J., &Kastak, D. A. (1995). There is no substitute for an experimental analysis of marine mammal cognition.Marine Mammal Science,11, 263–267.
Siegler, R. S., &Crowley, K. (1991). The microgenetic method: A direct means for studying cognitive development.American Psychologist,46, 606–620.
Smirnova, A. A., Lazareva, O. F., &Zorina, Z. A. (2000). Use of number by crows: Investigation by matching and oddity learning.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,73, 163–176.
Steirn, J. N., &Thomas, R. K. (1990). Comparative assessments of intelligence: Performances ofHomo sapiens sapiens on hierarchies of oddity and sameness-difference tasks.Journal of Comparative Psychology,104, 326–333.
Theodorakis, C. W. (1989). Size segregation and the effects of oddity on predation risk in minnow schools.Animal Behaviour,38, 496–502.
Thomas, R. K. (1980). Evolution of intelligence: An approach to its assessment.Brain, Behavior, & Evolution,17, 454–472.
Thomas, R. K. (1996). Investigating cognitive abilities in animals: Unrealized potential.Cognitive Brain Research,3, 157–166.
Thomas, R. K., &Boyd, M. G. (1973). A comparison ofCebus albifrons andSaimiri sciureus on oddity performance.Animal Learning & Behavior,1, 151–153.
Thomas, R. K., &Crosby, T. N. (1977). Absolute versus relative class conceptual behavior in squirrel monkeys (Saimiri sciureus).Animal Learning & Behavior,5, 265–271.
Thomas, R. K., &Frost, T. (1983). Oddity and dimension abstracted oddity (DAO) in squirrel monkeys.American Journal of Psychology,96, 51–64.
Thomas, R. K., &Noble, L. M. (1988). Visual and olfactory oddity learning in rats: What evidence is necessary to show conceptual behavior?Animal Learning & Behavior,16, 157–163.
Thompson, R. K. R. (1995). Natural and relational concepts in animals. In H. L. Roitblat & J.-A. Meyer (Eds.),Comparative approaches to cognitive science (pp. 175–224). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Turner, M. B. (1967).Philosophy and the science of behavior. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Zentall, T. R., Galizio, M., &Critchfield, T. S. (2002). Categorization, concept learning, and analysis: An introduction.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,78, 237–248.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hille, P., Dehnhardt, G. & Mauck, B. An analysis of visual oddity concept learning in a California sea lion (Zalophus californianus). Learning & Behavior 34, 144–153 (2006). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193190
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193190