Grouping of artificial objects in pigeons: An inquiry into the cognitive architecture of an avian mind

How does a pigeon see the world? Although pigeons are known to be adept at learning large numbers of figures, colors, and natural images, various experiments show that their visual cognitive specialization is more geared towards seeing colors and textures instead of shapes. They also excel in the analysis of local features instead of shapes that can only be differentiated by their outline. We therefore embarked into a detailed analysis of the relative weight of colors versus shapes in an object grouping task. At the same time we used a design that gave us information on the question of the relative importance of the S+ and S- in cognitive tests. Our strategy was to use the classic matching to sample task in which pigeons have to associate a sample with another stimulus (S+), which belongs to the same arbitrary group while at the same time avoiding choosing another stimulus (S-), which is part of another arbitrary group. Our results clearly reveal that color is, relative to shape, the primary cue that pigeons use to guide their decisions. Although they are in principle able to use shape information, they utilize shape as the last cognitive resort. Our data further reveal that pigeons guide their decisions in a matching to sample task primarily by focusing on the S+, although they also utilize information from the S-, albeit to a smaller extent. They are flexibly able to use cognitive match- or nonmatch-strategies depending on the presence or absence of color- or shape-cues.

[1]  Thomas R. Zentall,et al.  Functional equivalence in pigeons involving a four-member class , 2004, Behavioural Processes.

[2]  G. Farthing,et al.  Short-term memory and information processing in pigeons , 1977 .

[3]  E. Wasserman,et al.  Object discrimination by pigeons: effects of object color and shape , 2005, Behavioural Processes.

[4]  G. Vallortigara The Cognitive ChickenVisual and Spatial Cognition in a Nonmammalian Brain , 2009 .

[5]  David J. Freedman,et al.  The prefrontal cortex: categories, concepts and cognition. , 2002, Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences.

[6]  Richard J. Herrnstein,et al.  Fish as a Natural Category for People and Pigeons1 , 1980 .

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

[8]  Murray Sidman,et al.  Equivalence Relations and Behavior: A Research Story , 1994 .

[9]  Janice N. Steirn,et al.  Perceptual learning in pigeons: Decreased ability to Discriminate samples mapped onto the same comparison in many-to-one matching , 1997 .

[10]  T. Zentall,et al.  Common coding by pigeons in a many-to-one delayed matching task as evidenced by facilitation and interference effects , 1993 .

[11]  Interaction of sample dimension and sample-comparison mapping on pigeons’ performance of delayed conditional discriminations , 1989 .

[12]  David J. Freedman,et al.  Categorical representation of visual stimuli in the primate prefrontal cortex. , 2001, Science.

[13]  Thomas R Zentall,et al.  Choice based on exclusion in pigeons , 2003, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[14]  M. Jitsumori Category Structure and Typicality Effects , 2009 .

[15]  L. Huber,et al.  Lateralized cognition: Asymmetrical and complementary strategies of pigeons during discrimination of the “human concept” , 2007, Cognition.

[16]  Development of a Single-Code/Default Coding Strategy in Pigeons , 2000, Psychological science.

[17]  B. Crassini,et al.  Infant response to stimuli of similar hue and dissimilar shape: tracing the origins of the categorization of objects by hue. , 1989, Child development.

[18]  Shigeru Watanabe Van Gogh, Chagall and pigeons: picture discrimination in pigeons and humans , 2001, Animal Cognition.

[19]  T. Zentall,et al.  Categorization, concept learning, and behavior analysis: an introduction. , 2002, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[20]  T. Zentall,et al.  Coding of hedonic and nonhedonic samples by pigeons in many-to-one delayed matching , 1995 .

[21]  Brain research bulletin , 1984, Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior.

[22]  T. Zentall The case for a cognitive approach to animal learning and behavior , 2001, Behavioural Processes.

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

[24]  B. Tversky,et al.  Developmental trends in the use of perceptual and conceptual attributes in grouping, clustering, and retrieval. , 1981, Journal of experimental child psychology.

[25]  David J. Freedman,et al.  Visual categorization and the primate prefrontal cortex: neurophysiology and behavior. , 2002, Journal of neurophysiology.

[26]  Janice N. Steirn,et al.  Evidence for common coding in many-to-one matching: Retention, intertrial interference, and transfer. , 1989 .

[27]  E. Wasserman,et al.  Comparative cognition : experimental explorations of animal intelligence , 2009 .

[28]  T. Zentall,et al.  Common Coding of Samples Associated with the Same Comparison: The Nature of the Common Representation , 2001 .

[29]  Janice N. Steirn,et al.  Common coding in pigeons assessed through partial versus total reversals of many-to-one conditional and simple discriminations. , 1991 .

[30]  O. Güntürkün The avian ‘prefrontal cortex’ and cognition , 2005, Current Opinion in Neurobiology.

[31]  J. Delius,et al.  Stimulus equivalencies through discrimination reversals , 2000 .