Memorization and “feature selection” in the acquisition of natural concepts in pigeons

Edwards, Charles A.; Honig, Werner K.

doi:10.1016/0023-9690(87)90013-0

Cited by 51 publications

(52 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Over Days 37 to 40 of discrimination training, pigeons on the true categorization task averaged 79% correct, whereas pigeons on the pseudo-categorization task averaged only 44% correct. These results (and those of Edwards & Honig, 1987, Herrnstein & de Villiers, 1980, and Pearce, 1988 implicate differential within-versus betweenclass generalization as a key feature of visual categorization in animals. Wasserman et al (1988, Experiment 2) used a new technique to explore the stimuli that to pigeons constitute a class or category of objects.…”

Section: Do Animals Perceive Perceptual Similarity Among the Members mentioning

confidence: 70%

Concept Learning in Animals

Zentall¹,

Wasserman²,

Lazareva³

et al. 2008

CCBR

166

141

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Generally speaking, the study of concepts in cognitive psychology is anthropocentric with respect to both content and theory. A broader comparative perspective on the various forms of concept learning not only provides a more inclusive view of conceptual behavior, but it also provides a more objective perspective from which to identify underlying processes. We suggest that several of the major varieties of conceptual classes claimed to be uniquely human are also exhibited by nonhuman animals. We present evidence for the formation of several sorts of conceptual stimulus classes by nonhuman animals: perceptual classes involving classification according to the shared attributes of objects, associative classes or functional equivalences in which stimuli form a class based on common associations, relational classes, in which the conceptual relationship between or among stimuli defines the class, and relations between relations, in which the conceptual (analogical) relationship is defined by the relation between classes of stimuli. We conclude that not only are nonhuman animals capable of acquiring a wide variety of concepts, but that the underlying processes that determine concept learning are also likely to be quite similar.

show abstract

Section: Do Animals Perceive Perceptual Similarity Among the Members mentioning

confidence: 70%

Concept Learning in Animals

Zentall¹,

Wasserman²,

Lazareva³

et al. 2008

CCBR

166

141

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We do not know, of course, whether our subjects identified the birds and flowers as natural categories; quite clearly, the little pictures differed in many ways from the objects that they represent, and the birds may have .. constructed" the categories. But we do know that pigeons are adept at identifying stimuli from particular categories from pictures: Aside from the studies with human beings as the conceptual category (Edwards & Honig, 1987;Herrnstein & Loveland, 1964;Siegel & Honig, 1970), trees (Vaughan & Herrnstein, 1987), bodies of water (Herrnstein et al, 1976), fish (Herrnstein & deVilliers, 1980), and man-made constructions (Lubow, 1974) have been used. In all of these experiments, pictures were presented.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Other research from our laboratory with the same apparatus supports this supposition. Edwards and Honig (1987) carried out a concept attainment study with naturalistic scenes in which the presence of a human being in the picture was the positive feature. One training condition involved "matched pairs" of slides.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As shown by recent research on concept attainment, pigeons readily classify items within several different categories (Edwards & Honig, 1987;Greene, 1983;Herrnstein, 1979;Herrnstein & deVilliers, 1980;Herrnstein & Loveland, 1964;Herrnstein, Loveland, & Cable, 1976;Lubow, 1974;Siegel & Honig, 1970;Vaughan & Herrnstein, 1987). This capacity would be particularly useful for an animal if it could also estimate the quantity, or numerosity, of the items in an array that belong to the category.…”

mentioning

confidence: 97%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Discrimination of relative numerosity by pigeons

Honig

Stewart

1989

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In three experiments, pigeons were trained to discriminate between uniform arrays of two elements that differed in color, form, or size. They were then tested with arrays that contained different proportions ofthe two elements on these dimensions. In all cases, orderly discrimination gradients reflected these proportions. The discrimination readily transferred to new arrays with similar stimuli, but with different total numbers of elements. In Experiment 4, the pigeons were taught to discriminate between two groups of categorical stimuli: pictures of birds and pictures of flowers. A test with different proportions of each again produced a gradient based on relative numerosity. Experiment 5 demonstrated transfer of stimulus control on the numerosity dimension when pigeons were trained with one set of instances from two categories, and then were tested with new instances from the same categories.In a thoughtful and thorough review of research on counting in animals, Davis and Memmott (1982) distinguished between number discrimination and counting.Counting involves a precise tagging of each item in a display or a sequence of events, and a partitioning of items to distinguish between those already counted and those that remain to be counted. Convincing evidence for these processes in animals is sparse, and even when it can be found, the number of items or events that animals can count reliably does not extend much beyond three or four. Most species do not seem to possess the symbolic capacity required to enumerate the individual items in an array. Number discrimination, on the other hand, does not involve the rigorous criteria of true counting: this process refers to an organism's ability to make broad relative judgments such as many versus few. Such judgments are occasionally referred to as "numerosity judgments" or "magnitude estimations." The important point is that number discrimination is an essentially imprecise ability that is not as advanced as counting. (Davis & Memmott, 1982, pp. 548-549) Although this is a useful and important distinction, Davis and Memmott did not further discuss the topic of number discrimination. They devoted the rest of their review to counting. This suggests that there has been little research on the discrimination of numerosity, as distinguished from counting.The imprecise nature of numerosity discriminations (as we will call them) may discourage psychologists from analyzing them experimentally. However, the apparent numerosity of objects in a spatial array is no doubt important for many animals and birds. It is useful to be able to discriminate the size of a group or a flock of other animals, the density of trees in a particular area, or the relative numbers of ripe and unripe berries on a branch. As shown by recent research on concept attainment, pigeons readily classify items within several different categories

show abstract

“…Transfer tests with novel images suggest that pigeons perceive and utilize both types of pictorial depth cues. The implications ofthese results for our understanding of picture perception in pigeons are discussed.Numerous studies in which the perceptual and cognitive abilities of pigeons were investigated have used pictorial displays (categorization: Edwards & Honig, 1987;Hernstein & Loveland, 1964;Wasserman, Kiedinger, & Bhatt;1988; object recognition: Kirkpatrick-Steger, Wasserman, & Biederman, 1996;Wasserman et al, 1996;White, Alsop, & Williams, 1993; and spatial relations: Spetch, Kelly, & Lechelt, 1998;Spetch & Wilkie, 1994;Wilkie, Willson, & MacDonald, 1992). Much of this research is predicated on the assumption that similar cognitive processes underlie responding to both two-dimensional (2-D) and three-dimensional (3-D) stimuli and that the third dimension is adequately represented by pictorial depth cues.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Perception of pictorial depth cues by pigeons

Reid

1998

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pigeons were trained to discriminate pictures of intact objects from pictures of objects in which both depth from shading and depth from perspective cues were manipulated. Depth from shading was manipulated either by scrambling or by removing three-dimensional shading cues. Depth from perspective was manipulated either by presenting pictures of objects with a two-dimensional outline (l.e., a square) or with a three-dimensional outline (Le., a cube). Transfer tests with novel images suggest that pigeons perceive and utilize both types of pictorial depth cues. The implications ofthese results for our understanding of picture perception in pigeons are discussed.Numerous studies in which the perceptual and cognitive abilities of pigeons were investigated have used pictorial displays (categorization: Edwards & Honig, 1987;Hernstein & Loveland, 1964;Wasserman, Kiedinger, & Bhatt;1988; object recognition: Kirkpatrick-Steger, Wasserman, & Biederman, 1996;Wasserman et al., 1996;White, Alsop, & Williams, 1993; and spatial relations: Spetch, Kelly, & Lechelt, 1998;Spetch & Wilkie, 1994;Wilkie, Willson, & MacDonald, 1992). Much of this research is predicated on the assumption that similar cognitive processes underlie responding to both two-dimensional (2-D) and three-dimensional (3-D) stimuli and that the third dimension is adequately represented by pictorial depth cues. However, the question of whether pictorial stimuli do in fact adequately represent 3-D objects and scenes for nonhuman animals has received comparatively little empirical investigation.Evidence from object-picture equivalence studies suggests that pigeons perceive pictures as representations of real objects. Pigeons trained to discriminate simple geometric objects transfer responding to photographs oftraining objects (Cabe, 1976;Lumsden, 1977), and pigeons trained to categorize real objects (food and junk items) transfer categorical responding to photographs of both training and novel objects (Deli us, 1992;Watanabe, 1993Watanabe, , 1997. Furthermore, birds have been shown to recognize pictures of conspecifics (Trillmich, 1976). Together, these studies suggest that, under certain conditions, nonhuman animals are capable of recognizing the equivalence between 3-D objects and their 2-D pictorial representations.Although object-picture equivalence studies are able to demonstrate transfer between objects and pictures, it is not certain to what extent these findings reflect a capacityThe research presented in this paper was also presented at the International Conference on Comparative Cognition in Melbourne, FL (March 1997). This research was supported by an operating grant from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada to M.L.S. We thank D. Kelly for assistance with the research. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to M. L. Spetch, Department of Psychology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, T6G 2E9 Canada (e-mail: mspetch@psych.ualberta.ca).to perceive three-dimensionality in 2-D displays, as compared with 2-D fe...

show abstract

Memorization and “feature selection” in the acquisition of natural concepts in pigeons

Cited by 51 publications

References 8 publications

Concept Learning in Animals

Concept Learning in Animals

Discrimination of relative numerosity by pigeons

Perception of pictorial depth cues by pigeons

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About