Multiple cue use and integration in pigeons (Columba livia)

Legge, Eric L. G.; Madan, Christopher R.; Ludvig, Elliot Andrew

doi:10.1007/s10071-016-0963-8

Cited by 11 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The unequal weighting given to the two landmarks supports the suggestion that cue reliability is influenced by proximity to the goal (Ruprecht et al, 2014) and also indicates that our manipulation of the cue reliability was successful. The integration found in Experiment 1 is consistent with other evidence for cue combination in humans and animals (Byrne & Crawford, 2010; Cheng et al, 2007; Legge et al, 2016).…”

Section: Methodssupporting

confidence: 89%

“…Frequently, however, multiple cues of the same type could be used to localize a goal, such as multiple objects that could each serve as discrete visual landmarks. Some studies have suggested that non-human animals can combine information from multiple landmarks (Legge et al, 2016), but the manner and extent to which humans combine information from multiple discrete landmarks to locate a goal is less clear.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…First, the hierarchical model assumes that the most reliable or salient source of information will be used when it is present; other cues will be used only when the preferred one is not available. This model is also known as “take the best” or “winner-takes-all” (Gigerenzer & Brighton, 2009; Lea et al, 2009; Legge, Madan, Spetch, & Ludvig, 2016; Legge, Spetch, & Batty, 2009; Spetch & Edwards, 1988). Second, the alternation model suggests that multiple cues may be used across a number of search attempts but the information will not be averaged into a single estimate of the goal location.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, very few studies have directly tested this, and the evidence to date does not provide a clear answer. There is some evidence that humans, like other animals (Legge et al, 2016; Spetch & Mondloch, 1993), will differentially weight multiple landmarks in spatial tasks (Byrne & Crawford, 2010; Sturz & Bodily, 2010; see Cheng et al, 2007 for a review). However, these studies did not provide direct tests of whether the information from the different landmarks was combined or used independently in determining where to search.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Cue integration in spatial search for jointly learned landmarks but not for separately learned landmarks.

Du¹,

McMillan²,

Madan³

et al. 2017

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The authors investigated how humans use multiple landmarks to locate a goal. Participants searched for a hidden goal location along a line between 2 distinct landmarks on a computer screen. On baseline trials, the location of the landmarks and goal varied, but the distance between each of the landmarks and the goal was held constant, with 1 landmark always closer to the goal. In Experiment 1, some baseline trials provided both landmarks, and some provided only 1 landmark. On probe trials, both landmarks were shifted apart relative to the previously learned goal location. Participants searched between the locations specified by the 2 landmarks and their search locations were shifted more toward the nearer landmark, suggesting a weighted integration of the conflicting landmarks. Moreover, the observed variance in search responses when both cues were presented in their normal locations was reduced compared to the variance on tests with single landmarks. However, the variance reduction and the weightings of the landmarks did not always show Bayesian optimality. In Experiment 2, some participants were trained only with each of the single landmarks. On subsequent tests with the 2 cues in conflict, searching did not shift toward the nearer landmark and the variance of search responses of these single-cue trained participants was larger than their variance on single-landmark tests, and even larger than the variance predicted by using the 2 landmarks alternatively on different trials. Taken together, these results indicate that cue combination occurs only when the landmarks are presented together during the initial learning experience. (PsycINFO Database Record

show abstract

Section: Methodssupporting

confidence: 89%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Cue integration in spatial search for jointly learned landmarks but not for separately learned landmarks.

Du¹,

McMillan²,

Madan³

et al. 2017

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, birds often shift their search only partway toward a shifted landmark, suggesting a compromise between the shifted cues and other nonshifted cues. Legge found that a model of Bayesian integration in which the spatial cues are weighted by their reliability fit pigeons' search behavior better than models based on independent cue use. Interestingly, pigeons have even been shown to integrate both temporal and spatial information to determine a single criterion for when to respond; this finding revealed an ability to centrally integrate information from fundamentally different sources, one based on an internal sense of time and one based on visual perception of a location in space.…”

Section: Spatial Cognitionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Avian cognition: examples of sophisticated capabilities in space and song

McMillan

Hahn

Sturdy

2015

WIRES Cognitive Science

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although birds have traditionally and colloquially been considered less cognitively complex than mammals, and especially primates, more recent research has consistently refuted these assumptions. We argue that the impressive abilities of birds to navigate and communicate require considerable information-processing capabilities. These capacities include collecting, organizing, and selecting from a wide variety of navigational cues to orient toward and find a goal location in the spatial domain, and utilizing open-ended categorization and possibly even abstract reasoning to discriminate species-specific acoustic features of songs and calls. Furthermore, these abilities may be present across many avian species, providing evidence for domain-general cognitive facilities. We provide examples of processes in spatial learning and communication in birds, and locate them within the general literature, as evidence that the term 'bird-brain' should not be considered a pejorative.

show abstract