Categorization of complex visual images by rhesus monkeys. Part 1: behavioural study

In order to study how visual categories are coded by the activities of single neurons, it is necessary to first demonstrate that the animal subjects can categorize the visual stimuli employed in the single‐unit recordings. Thus, rhesus monkeys were trained in a visual categorization task designed to minimize rote learning of individual exemplars and to allow testing of transfer from old to novel exemplars of the category. The stimuli were presented during controlled fixation. The monkeys learned to distinguish complex colour images of trees from other objects and generalized from old to novel exemplars. An extensive series of tests with probe stimuli showed that simple form, colour and texture features had insufficient stimulus control to account for the categorization performance. Scrambling the images impaired categorization performance, suggesting that the configuration of stimulus components controlled the categorization. The animals also learned a fish/non‐fish categorization, but more slowly than a tree/non‐tree categorization. These results indicate that rhesus monkeys can learn to categorize socially neutral, complex, natural visual images and suggest that this categorization is based on a combination of low‐level features.

[1]  R. Herrnstein,et al.  Complex Visual Concept in the Pigeon , 1964, Science.

[2]  Wayne D. Gray,et al.  Basic objects in natural categories , 1976, Cognitive Psychology.

[3]  R. Herrnstein,et al.  Natural concepts in pigeons. , 1976, Journal of experimental psychology. Animal behavior processes.

[4]  B. Richmond,et al.  Implantation of magnetic search coils for measurement of eye position: An improved method , 1980, Vision Research.

[5]  A. Wright,et al.  Pictorial similarity judgments and the organization of visual memory in the rhesus monkey. , 1982, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[6]  M. Povar,et al.  Studies of concept formation by stumptailed monkeys: Concepts humans, monkeys, and letter A.. , 1984 .

[7]  A. M. Schrier,et al.  Categorization of natural stimuli by monkeys (Macaca mulatta): effects of stimulus set size and modification of exemplars. , 1987, Journal of experimental psychology. Animal behavior processes.

[8]  W. Roberts,et al.  Concept learning at different levels of abstraction by pigeons, monkeys, and people. , 1988 .

[9]  M. R. D'Amato,et al.  The person concept in monkeys (Cebus apella) , 1988 .

[10]  S. Leigh,et al.  Probability and Random Processes for Electrical Engineering , 1989 .

[11]  G. Orban,et al.  How well do response changes of striate neurons signal differences in orientation: a study in the discriminating monkey , 1990, The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience.

[12]  L. Komatsu Recent views of conceptual structure , 1992 .

[13]  I. Biederman,et al.  Pigeons Are Sensitive to the Spatial Organization of Complex Visual Stimuli , 1993 .

[14]  M Jitsumori,et al.  Discrimination of Artificial Polymorphous Categories by Rhesus Monkeys (Macaca mulatta) , 1994, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. B, Comparative and physiological psychology.

[15]  S. Thorpe,et al.  Rapid categorization of natural images by rhesus monkeys , 1998, Neuroreport.

[16]  R. Vogels Categorization of complex visual images by rhesus monkeys. Part 2: single‐cell study , 1999, The European journal of neuroscience.