Failure of visual prototype learning in the pigeon

Watanabe, Shigeru

doi:10.3758/bf03209057

Cited by 23 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Moreover, several studies have reported no difference in the discrimination between prototype and non-prototype stimuli in birds (e.g. Watanabe, 1988;Huber and Lenz, 1993;Jitsumori, 1993;Lea et al, 1993).…”

Section: Exemplar and Prototype Based Theoriesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Categories as paradigms for comparative cognition

Zayan¹,

Vauclair

1998

Behavioural Processes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Forming categories is a basic cognitive operation allowing animals to attain concepts, i.e. to represent various classes of objects, natural or artificial, physical or social. Categories can also be formed about the relations holding among these objects, notably similarity and identity. Some of the cognitive processes involved in categorisation will be enumerated. Also, special reference will be made to a much neglected area of research, that of social representations. Here, animals conceive the natural class of their conspecifics as well as the relationships established between them in groups. Two types of social categories were mentioned: (1) intraspecies recognition including recognition of individual conspecifics; and (2) representation of dominance hierarchies and of their transitivity in linear orders.

show abstract

Section: Exemplar and Prototype Based Theoriesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Categories as paradigms for comparative cognition

Zayan¹,

Vauclair

1998

Behavioural Processes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Physiological and anatomical data provide valuable guidelines, but our understanding of the pigeon's view of the world requires the analysis of its perception as revealed through its behavior. The comparative analysis of pigeon and human form perception in visual search (e.g., D. S. Blough & P. M. Blough, 1997;Cook, Cavoto, & Cavoto, 1996) represents an important step in this direction, as does other work showing similarity and differences in the behavior of these species (e.g., Hollard & Delius, 1982;Kirkpatrick-Steger, Wasserman, & Biederman, 1996;Ushitani, Fujita, & Yamanaka, 2001;Watanabe, 1988).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of identical context on visual pattern recognition by pigeons

Donis

Chase

Heinemann

2005

Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The effects of identical context on pattern recognition by pigeons for outline drawings of faces were investigated by training pigeons to identify (Experiment 1) and categorize (Experiment 2) these stimuli according to the orientation of the mouth-an upright U shape representing a smiling mouth or an inverted U shape representing a sad mouth. These target stimuli were presented alone (Pair 1), with three dots in a triangular orientation to represent a nose and eyes (Pair 2), and with the face pattern surrounded by an oval (Pair 3). In Experiment 1, the pigeons trained with Pair 1 were most accurate, those trained with Pair 2 were less so, and those trained with Pair 3 failed to acquire the discrimination within eighty 100-trial sessions. The same ordering was found in Experiment 2 for pigeons trained on the three pairs simultaneously. The authors suggest that a contrasting finding in humans, the face superiority effect, might be due to a gain in discriminability resulting from recognition of the pattern as a face. An exemplar model of information processing that excludes linguistic coding accounts for the present results.

show abstract

“…This finding does not seem compatible with prototype-based categorization mechanisms (e.g., one involving reference to a "distilled" memorized representation of an "ideal" sphere; cf. Watanabe, 1988), since by its very nature, this kind of theory does not provide for relativistic stimulus assessments. For similar reasons, the result cannot be accommodated easily with the conception that open-ended categorization is simply an extension of categorization by rote through simple stimulus generalization (Pearce, 1988).…”

Section: Criteriamentioning

confidence: 99%

Categorical discrimination of objects and pictures by pigeons

Delius

1992

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

With a three-choice instrumental discrimination procedure, pigeons were taught to distinguish small spherical objects from nonspherical objects. Spherical objects were defined as positive, nonspherical objects as negative. A device allowing an automatic presentation of the stimuli was employed. The subjects actually pecked the objects, and grain rewards were presented directly beside the correct objects. Acquisition was rapid, with the birds reaching a criterion of 80% correct choices within less than 150 trials. There was evidence that more than 200 objects were remembered individually over 3 months. Pigeons transferred the discrimination of sphericalJnonspherical objects to novel objects. The criteria by which the birds judged the sphericity of objects seemed to be similar to those applied by humans. They could apply the categorization in a relational manner and generalize it to apply to photographs and drawings of objects. The categorization competence was retained for at least 3 months.

show abstract

Failure of visual prototype learning in the pigeon

Cited by 23 publications

References 24 publications

Categories as paradigms for comparative cognition

Categories as paradigms for comparative cognition

Effects of identical context on visual pattern recognition by pigeons

Categorical discrimination of objects and pictures by pigeons

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About