Structure and function of the pigeon visual system

Donovan, William J.

doi:10.3758/bf03326748

Cited by 95 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 223 publications

(193 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There are many differences between human and pigeon visual systems; for example, pigeons have a panoramic visual field with a 25 0 wide binocular field, an extra area that has many photoreceptors in addition to the fovea, several different types of oil droplets in the retina, complete decussation at the optic chiasm, tectum-rather than cortex-based vision, and so forth (Donovan, 1978). As Blough (1984) pointed out, similarities between pigeons and humans suggest important constraints on neural hypotheses.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pigeons see the Ponzo illusion

Fujita

Blough

1991

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Three experiments were performed to address factors contributing to the Ponzo illusion. In Experiment 1, pigeons learned to peck at the longer of two bars in varying line contexts. When these lines converged, the birds had difficulty in learning several patterns in which a Ponzo illusion would reduce the perceived difference. In Experiment 2, the subjects chose one response if a stimulus bar was longer than a predetermined length and a second response for shorter bars. The subjects were more likely to choose "long" as the stimulus bar approached the apex of converging lines. These results suggested that pigeons experience the Ponzo illusion. In Experiment 3, the effects of contexts that did and did not form a texture gradient were compared. The magnitude ofthe illusion did not differ according to context lines. This result failed to support a perspective theory of the Ponzo illusion. 283Studies of form pereeption in nonhuman speeies have demonstrated both similarities and dissimilarities with form perception in hurnans. For example, judgments about letter similarity are alike in pigeons, nonhurnan primates, and hurnans (Blough, 1982(Blough, , 1985Matsuzawa, 1985). On the other hand, recent evidenee indieates that pigeons and humans respond differently to eertain features of forms in visual seareh tasks (Allan & Blough, 1989).An interesting aspeet of pattern pereeption eoneerns geometrie illusions. Although rnany researehers have been interested in illusory pereeption by humans and many different geometrie illusions have been diseovered, there are few reports of illusory effects in nonhuman animals. Several studies suggest that monkeys are suseeptible to geometrie illusions: Dominguez (1954) showed that monkeys experienee a horizontal-vertieal illusion in whieh vertieallines are judged to be longer than horizontallines ofthe same length; Dominguez (1954) and Harris (1968, cited in Davis, 1974 demonstrated that monkeys are likely to see rectangles as being taller than squares (breadth-ofrectangles illusion); Benhar and Samuel (1982) showed that anubis baboons see a Zötlner illusion, in whieh parallel lines appear to be nonparallel because of the presenee of oblique transverse lines; Bayne and Davis (1983) demonstrated that rhesus monkeys are suseepti-

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pigeons see the Ponzo illusion

Fujita

Blough

1991

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Near-ultraviolet light can cause fluorescence of the yellow oil-droplets (Marc, cited by Donovan, 1978) phenomenon can only account for a minor part of the near-u.v. sensitivity found.with the criterion response method, since this sensitivity appeared CO be low in flicker photometry.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Photopic spectral sensitivities of the red and the yellow field of the pigeon retina

1984

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-Thespectral sensitivities of the red field and the yellow field in the retina of the homing pigeon (Co(umba Lickz) were determined on the basis of ERG responses. Between 450 and 550 nm the relative spectral sensitivity of the yellow field turned out to be higher than that of the red field. The results are in agreement with spectral sensitivity data, obtained by behavioural threshold procedures.Spectral sensitivity ERG Retinal fields Oil-droplets

show abstract

“…By giving Shift animals a second, more salient (e.g., Donovan, 1978;Lazareva, Vecera, Levin, & Wasserman, 2005;Varela, Palacios, & Goldsmith, 1993) predictor of reinforcement probability (i.e., rather than the timing of a session's midpoint), we found strong control of behavioral variability by reinforcement probability and the elimination of the lack of difference in the first halves of sessions for Group Shift. This research supplements work from recent years on the control of variability by respondent factors (e.g., Leising et al, 2014;Stahlman & Blaisdell, 2011a).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 76%

Midsession shifts in reward probability and the control of behavioral variability

Stahlman

Leising

2016

Learn Behav

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Extensive research has shown that the variability of organismal behavior is great when contingent reinforcement is delayed, small, or improbable. This research has generally employed stable response-reinforcer relationships, and therefore is limited in its explanatory scope with respect to a dynamic environment. We conducted two experiments to investigate whether pigeons' conditioned pecking behavior shows anticipatory or perseverative patterns of behavioral variability when the reinforcement probability reliably changes within experimental sessions. In Experiment 1, three pigeons received alternating sessions in which the reinforcement probability (35% or 4.2%) was shifted at the midpoint of each session in the presence of the same discrete cue. Experiment 2 featured a similar design, but with the inclusion of a discrete visual cue that changed at the session midpoint, and thus unambiguously indicated reinforcement probability. Local reinforcement rates only reliably controlled response variability when a discrete visual cue was available. Without this, pigeons did not discriminate between trial types in the first halves of sessions, and showed evidence of perseveration of response variability following a within-session shift. Critically, this is the first experimental demonstration that the relationship between reinforcement probability and behavioral variability is moderated by another factor (i.e., trial position within a session). This study thus expands our understanding of the control of behavioral variability as a function of experiential factors.

show abstract

Structure and function of the pigeon visual system

Cited by 95 publications

References 223 publications

Pigeons see the Ponzo illusion

Pigeons see the Ponzo illusion

Photopic spectral sensitivities of the red and the yellow field of the pigeon retina

Midsession shifts in reward probability and the control of behavioral variability

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About