Mind the gap: means–end discrimination by pigeons

Four experiments examined the discrimination performance of four pigeons in two means–end tasks. The pigeons were required to discriminate between two ribbon/food dish assemblies in a simultaneous discrimination. In the connected condition, the ribbon was attached to an out-of-reach food dish, allowing it to be retrieved by the pigeon pulling it with its beak. In the unconnected condition, the ribbon was unattached to the dish, preventing it from being used to retrieve the food. In experiment 1, the pigeons learned this means–end task in fewer than 160 trials. Experiment 2 established that this discrimination was controlled by the gap between the ribbon and dish, and, to a limited extent, by the ribbon's colour. Experiment 3 showed no transfer of this prior means–end training to a second means–end task using a different physical arrangement of ‘connectedness’. Experiment 4 revealed that control of this second task was also related to the perceptual features of the gap between the ribbons. The results indicate that the pigeons did not comprehend the conceptual nature of connectedness across these means–end tasks, but did successfully learn each discrimination based on its relevant perceptual features.

[1]  Hika Kuroshima,et al.  How do tufted capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella) understand causality involved in tool use? , 2003, Journal of experimental psychology. Animal behavior processes.

[2]  S. Tebbich,et al.  Do woodpecker finches acquire tool-use by social learning? , 2001, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[3]  A. Kacelnik,et al.  Shaping of Hooks in New Caledonian Crows , 2002, Science.

[4]  J. Piaget.  The construction of reality in the child , 1954 .

[5]  Sharon L. Greene,et al.  Pigeon visual memory capacity. , 1984 .

[6]  John R. Anderson.  Problem solving and learning. , 1993 .

[7]  Gavin R Hunt,et al.  Lateralized tool use in wild New Caledonian crows , 2004, Animal Behaviour.

[8]  M. Hauser,et al.  Ontogeny of tool use in cottontop tamarins, Saguinus oedipus: innate recognition of functionally relevant features , 2002, Animal Behaviour.

[9]  Michael L. Commons,et al.  Behavioral approaches to pattern recognition and concept formation , 2019 .

[10]  T. Aumann,et al.  Use of Stones by the Black-Breasted Buzzard Hamirostra melanosternon to Gain Access to Egg Contents for Food , 1990 .

[11]  M. Nakamichi.  Tool-use and tool-making by captive, group-living orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus abelii) at an artificial termite mound , 2004, Behavioural Processes.

[12]  Jackie Chappell,et al.  Tool selectivity in a non-primate, the New Caledonian crow (Corvus moneduloides) , 2002, Animal Cognition.

[13]  Retroactive interference in pigeon short-term memory by a reduction in ambient illumination. , 1980 .

[14]  G. Hunt.  Manufacture and use of hook-tools by New Caledonian crows , 1996, Nature.

[15]  G. Berntson,et al.  Responses to quantity: perceptual versus cognitive mechanisms in chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). , 1995, Journal of experimental psychology. Animal behavior processes.

[16]  Aaron P. Blaisdell,et al.  Dynamic object perception by pigeons: discrimination of action in video presentations , 2001, Animal Cognition.

[17]  E. P..  Animal Behaviour , 1901, Nature.

[18]  R. Cook.  Dimensional organization and texture discrimination in pigeons , 1992 .

[19]  R. Cook,et al.  Same-different texture discrimination and concept learning by pigeons. , 1995 .

[20]  P. Willatts.  Development of means-end behavior in young infants: pulling a support to retrieve a distant object. , 1999, Developmental psychology.

[21]  R. Cook,et al.  Pigeon perception and discrimination of rapidly changing texture stimuli. , 1997, Journal of experimental psychology. Animal behavior processes.

[22]  R. Cook,et al.  Pigeon same-different concept learning with multiple stimulus classes. , 1997, Journal of experimental psychology. Animal behavior processes.

[23]  R. Cook.  The Comparative Psychology of Avian Visual Cognition , 2000 .

[24]  E. Visalberghi,et al.  Lack of comprehension of cause-effect relations in tool-using capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella). , 1994, Journal of comparative psychology.

[25]  Aaron P Blaisdell,et al.  Capacity and limits of associative memory in pigeons , 2005, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[26]  Jerald D. Kralik,et al.  Problem solving and functional design features: experiments on cotton-top tamarins,Saguinus oedipus oedipus , 1999, Animal Behaviour.

[27]  Jerald D. Kralik,et al.  A nonhuman primate's perception of object relations: experiments on cottontop tamarins, Saguinus oedipus , 2002, Animal Behaviour.

[28]  Bernd Heinrich,et al.  AN EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION OF INSIGHT IN COMMON RAVENS (CORVUS CORAX) , 1995 .

[29]  Charles A. Edwards,et al.  Memorization and “feature selection” in the acquisition of natural concepts in pigeons☆ , 1987 .

[30]  Jacquelyne J. Rivera,et al.  Concept learning by pigeons: Matching-to-sample with trial-unique video picture stimuli , 1988 .

[31]  D. Povinelli.  Folk physics for apes , 2000 .

[32]  P. Willatts,et al.  Development of means-end behavior in young infants: pulling a support to retrieve a distant object. , 1999, Developmental psychology.