Eight crows were taught to discriminate overlapping pairs of visual stimuli (Aϩ BϪ, Bϩ CϪ, Cϩ DϪ, and Dϩ EϪ). For 4 birds, the stimuli were colored cards with a circle of the same color on the reverse side whose diameter decreased from A to E (ordered feedback group). These circles were made available for comparison to potentially help the crows order the stimuli along a physical dimension. For the other 4 birds, the circles corresponding to the colored cards had the same diameter (constant feedback group). In later testing, a novel choice pair (BD) was presented. Reinforcement history involving stimuli B and D was controlled so that the reinforcement/nonreinforcement ratios for the latter would be greater than for the former. If, during the BD test, the crows chose between stimuli according to these reinforcement/nonreinforcement ratios, then they should prefer D; if they chose according to the diameter of the feedback stimuli, then they should prefer B. In the ordered feedback group, the crows strongly preferred B over D; in the constant feedback group, the crows' choice did not differ significantly from chance. These results, plus simulations using associative models, suggest that the orderability of the postchoice feedback stimuli is important for crows' transitive responding.Key

Analogical reasoning is vital to advanced cognition and behavioral adaptation. Many theorists deem analogical thinking to be uniquely human and to be foundational to categorization, creative problem solving, and scientific discovery. Comparative psychologists have long been interested in the species generality of analogical reasoning, but they initially found it difficult to obtain empirical support for such thinking in nonhuman animals (for pioneering efforts, see [2, 3]). Researchers have since mustered considerable evidence and argument that relational matching-to-sample (RMTS) effectively captures the essence of analogy, in which the relevant logical arguments are presented visually. In RMTS, choice of test pair BB would be correct if the sample pair were AA, whereas choice of test pair EF would be correct if the sample pair were CD. Critically, no items in the correct test pair physically match items in the sample pair, thus demanding that only relational sameness or differentness is available to support accurate choice responding. Initial evidence suggested that only humans and apes can successfully learn RMTS with pairs of sample and test items; however, monkeys have subsequently done so. Here, we report that crows too exhibit relational matching behavior. Even more importantly, crows spontaneously display relational responding without ever having been trained on RMTS; they had only been trained on identity matching-to-sample (IMTS). Such robust and uninstructed relational matching behavior represents the most convincing evidence yet of analogical reasoning in a nonprimate species, as apes alone have spontaneously exhibited RMTS behavior after only IMTS training.

Hooded crows were trained in two-alternative simultaneous matching and oddity tasks with stimulus sets of three different categories: color (black and white), shape (Arabic Numerals 1 and 2, which were used as visual shapes only), and number of elements (arrays of one and two items). These three sets were used for training successively and repeatedly; the stimulus set was changed to the next one after the criterion (80% correct or better over 30 consecutive trials) was reached with the previous one. Training was continued until the criterion could be reached within the first 30 to 50 trials for each of the three training sets. During partial transfer tests, familiar stimuli (numerals and arrays in the range from 1 to 2) were paired with novel ones (numerals and arrays in the range from 3 to 4). At the final stage of testing only novel stimuli were presented (numerals and arrays in the range from 5 to 8). Four of 6 birds were able to transfer in these tests, and their performance was significantly above chance. Moreover, performance of the birds on the array stimuli did not differ from their performance on the color or shape stimuli. They were capable of recognizing the number of elements in arrays and comparing the stimuli by this attribute. It was concluded that crows were able to apply the matching (or oddity) concept to stimuli of numerical category.

No abstract