Kea (Nestor notabilis) represent object trajectory and identity

Bastos, Amalia P. M.; Taylor, Alexander

doi:10.1038/s41598-019-56380-4

Cited by 10 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 35 publications

(28 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This control sought to test whether kea exhibited any natural preferences for or against lid-popping, prior to experiencing any experimental trials. Given their experimental background and extent of daily environmental enrichment 33 , 34 , we needed to determine if they would engage in the task at all. Only two subjects showed a statistically significantly preference for the lidded cup (Neo and Plankton, see Table 2 ), but all eight subjects chose the lidded cup at least half the time (sign test, p = .016), indicating, at the group level, a preference for popping lids off the empty cups.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Contrafreeloading in kea (Nestor notabilis) in comparison to Grey parrots (Psittacus erithacus)

Smith

Bastos

Chodorow

et al. 2022

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Contrafreeloading—working to access food that could be freely obtained—is rarely exhibited and poorly understood. Based on data from Grey parrots (Psittacus erithacus), researchers proposed a correlation between contrafreeloading and play: that contrafreeloading is more likely when subjects view the task as play. We tested that hypothesis by subjecting a relatively more playful parrot species, the kea (Nestor notabilis), to the same experimental tasks. Experiment 1 presented eight kea with container pairs holding more- or less-preferred free or enclosed food items, and examined three types of contrafreeloading: calculated (working to access preferred food over less-preferred, freely available food); classic (working to access food identical to freely available food); and super (working to access less-preferred food over preferred, freely available food). At the group level, the kea behaved similarly to the Greys: They significantly preferred calculated contrafreeloading, performed classic contrafreeloading at chance, and significantly failed to super contrafreeload. However, overall kea engaged in more contrafreeloading than Greys. Experiment 2 examined a potentially more ecologically relevant task, a choice between shelled and unshelled walnuts. No kea contrafreeloaded for nuts, whereas two of five Greys significantly preferred nut contrafreeloading and one chose at chance. We examine proximate and adaptive explanations for the performances of these differentially playful parrot species to further elucidate the role of play in contrafreeloading.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Contrafreeloading in kea (Nestor notabilis) in comparison to Grey parrots (Psittacus erithacus)

Smith

Bastos

Chodorow

et al. 2022

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Previous results suggest a full understanding of object permanence up to Stage 6 in several non-human species, including primates (e.g., Neiworth et al, 2003;Mendes and Huber, 2004; Barth and Call, 2006), corvids (Corvidae, e.g., Bugnyar et al, 2007;Hoffmann et al, 2011), psittacids (Psittacidae, e.g., Pepperberg et al, 1997;Auersperg et al, 2014;Bastos and Taylor, 2019), pigeons (Columba livia domestica, Zentall and Raley, 2019), and goats (Capra aegagrus hircus, Nawroth et al, 2015;Vas et al, 2019). Other species succeeded in tasks involving Stage 5, but not 6.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 91%

Horses Solve Visible but Not Invisible Displacement Tasks in an Object Permanence Paradigm

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A key question in the field of animal cognition is how animals comprehend their physical world. Object permanence is one of the fundamental features of physical cognition. It is the ability to reason about hidden objects and to mentally reconstruct their invisible displacements. This cognitive skill has been studied in a wide range of species but never directly in the horse (Equus caballus). In this study, we therefore assessed the understanding of visible and invisible displacements in adult Welsh mares in two complementary experiments, using different horses. In experiment 1, visible displacement was investigated using two tasks adapted from the Uzgiris and Hunt scale 1. Invisible displacement was assessed using a transposition task, in which food was first hidden in one of two containers and the location of the containers was then switched. In experiment 2, we further investigated horses' understanding of visible and invisible displacements using an easier procedure designed to avoid potentially confounding factors. In both experiments, horses successfully completed the tasks involving visible displacement with two or three possible hiding places. However, in both experiments, horses failed the transposition tasks, suggesting that they may not be able to track the displacement of an object that is not directly perceived (i.e., invisible displacement). These results bring new insights into object permanence in horses and how they represent their physical world.

show abstract

“…Where two cups are used, for example, they must reason that if the reward is not hidden in the cup shown to be empty, then it must be in the other one. Several species of corvids ( Schloegl et al, 2009 ; Mikolasch et al, 2012 ; Shaw et al, 2013 ; Jelbert et al, 2015 ), parrots ( Schloegl et al, 2009 ; Mikolasch et al, 2011 ; Pepperberg et al, 2013 ; O’Hara et al, 2015 , 2016 ; Bastos and Taylor, 2019 ; Subias et al, 2019 ), and apes ( Call, 2004 , 2006 ; Hill et al, 2011 ) readily reason in this way. The ability to reason by exclusion is present in some New World monkeys ( Sabbatini and Visalberghi, 2008 ; Marsh et al, 2015 ; Takahashi et al, 2015 ).…”

Section: Differences In Intelligence Across Speciesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Macphail’s Null Hypothesis of Vertebrate Intelligence: Insights From Avian Cognition

Bastos

Taylor

2020

Front. Psychol.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Macphail famously criticized two foundational assumptions that underlie the evolutionary approach to comparative psychology: that there are differences in intelligence across species, and that intelligent behavior in animals is based on more than associative learning. Here, we provide evidence from recent work in avian cognition that supports both these assumptions: intelligence across species varies, and animals can perform intelligent behaviors that are not guided solely by associative learning mechanisms. Finally, we reflect on the limitations of comparative psychology that led to Macphail's claims and suggest strategies researchers can use to make more advances in the field.

show abstract

Kea (Nestor notabilis) represent object trajectory and identity

Cited by 10 publications

References 35 publications

Contrafreeloading in kea (Nestor notabilis) in comparison to Grey parrots (Psittacus erithacus)

Contrafreeloading in kea (Nestor notabilis) in comparison to Grey parrots (Psittacus erithacus)

Horses Solve Visible but Not Invisible Displacement Tasks in an Object Permanence Paradigm

Macphail’s Null Hypothesis of Vertebrate Intelligence: Insights From Avian Cognition

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About