Three experiments investigated the discrimination of artificial patterns on the basis of an underlying symmetry rule by pigeons. In Experiment 1, two groups were trained to discriminate between different types of bilaterally symmetric and asymmetric “chequerboard” patterns. In the second experiment, we tested the ability of pigeons to generalize to novel patterns. Successful transfer was confined to patterns similar to those used for training in Experiment 1. Experiment 3 was designed to investigate the positive results obtained by Delius and Nowak (1982). Naive pigeons were trained on tasks either involving copies of their training patterns, or employing their training procedure, or both. The behaviour of these pigeons was similar to that found in Experiments 1 and 2 but different from that obtained by Delius and Nowak (1982). The results of these experiments indicate that the use of symmetry as an abstract concept: (a) depends on the type of stimuli used, and (b) is not an easy task for pigeons.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BarlowH.B., & ReevesB.C. (1979). The versatility and absolute efficiency of detecting mirror symmetry in random dot displays. Vision Research, 19, 783–793.
2.
BruceV.G., & MorganM.J. (1975). Violations of symmetry and repetition in visual patterns. Perception, 4, 239–249.
3.
CerellaJ. (1986). Pigeons and perceptions. Pattern Recognition, 19(6), 431–438.
ChaterN., & HeyesC. (1994). Animal concepts: Content and discontent. Mind & Language, 9(3), 209–246.
6.
D'AmatoM.R., & Van SantP. (1988). The person concept in monkeys(Cebus apella). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 14(1), 43–55.
7.
DeliusJ.D. (1994). Comparative cognition of identity. In BertelsonP., EelenP., & d'YdewalleG. (Eds.), International perspectives on psychological science. Vol. 1: Leading Themes (pp. 25–40). Hove, UK: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Ltd.
EdwardsC.A., & HonigW.K. (1987). Memorization and “feature selection” in the acquisition of natural concepts in pigeons. Learning and Motivation, 18(3), 235–260.
11.
EllisN. (1974). Perception of symmetry by pigeons. Unpublished undergraduate research project report. University of Cambridge, England.
HuberL. (in press). Generic perception: Open-ended categorization of natural classes. Current Psychology of Cognition, 18(5).
25.
HuberL., & LenzR. (1993). A test of the linear feature model of polymorphous concept discrimination with pigeons. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 46B(1), 1–18.
26.
HuberL., & LenzR. (1996). Categorisation of prototypical stimulus classes by pigeons. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49B(2), 111–133.
27.
HuberL., TrojeN.F., LoidoltM., AustU., & GrassD. (1999). Natural categorization through multiple feature learning in pigeons. Manuscript submitted for publication.
28.
JacobyL.L., & BrooksL.R. (1984). Nonanalytic cognition: Memory, perception, and concept learning. The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 18, 1–47.
29.
JenkinsB. (1983). Component processes in the perception of bilaterally symmetric dot textures. Perception and Psychophysics, 34, 433–440.
30.
JohnstoneR.A. (1994). Female preference for symmetrical males as a by-product of selection for mate recognition. Nature, 372, 172–175.
31.
MachE. (1886). Die Analyse der Empfindungen und das Verhältnis des Physischen zum Psychischen.Jena: Fischer.
32.
MackintoshN.J. (in press). Abstraction and discrimination. In HeyesC. & HuberL. (Eds.), Evolution of cognition.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
33.
MazurJ.E., & HastieR. (1978). Learning as accumulation. A reexamination of the learning curve. Psychological Bulletin, 85, 1256–1274.
34.
MenneM., & CurioE. (1978). Untersuchungen zum Symmetriekonzept bei Kohlmeisen (Parus major). Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie, 47, 299–322.
35.
MøllerA.P. (1992). Female swallow preference for symmetrical male sexual ornaments. Nature, 357, 238–240.
36.
MonenJ., BrennerE., & ReynaertsJ. (1998). What does a pigeon see in a Picasso?Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 69(2), 223–226.
37.
MorganM.J., FitchM.D., HolmanM.D., & LeaS.E.G. (1976). Pigeons learn the concept of an “A”. Perception, 5, 57–66.
38.
OsorioD. (1996). Symmetry detection by categorization of spatial phase, a model. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, B, 263, 105–110.
39.
PalmerS.E. (1991). Goodness, gestalt, groups, and Garner: Local symmetry subgroups as a theory of figural goodness. In LockheadG.R. & PomerantzJ.R. (Eds.), The perception of structure (pp. 23–38). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
40.
PalmerS.E., & HemenwayK. (1978). Orientation and symmetry: Effects of multiple, rotational, and near symmetries. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 4, 691–702.
41.
PremackD. (1983). Animal cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 34, 351–362.
42.
RehkämperG., HaaseE., & FrahmH.D. (1988). Allometric comparison of brain weight and brain structure volumes in different breeds of the domestic pigeon, Columba livia f.d. (Fantails, Homing Pigeons, Strassers). Brain, Behavior and Evolution, 31, 141–149.
43.
RenschB. (1957). Ästhetische Faktoren bei Farb- und Formbevorzugungen bei Affen. Zeitschrift fur Tierpsychologie, 14, 71–99.
44.
RoitblatH.L., & von FersenL. (1992). Comparative cognition: Representations and processes in learning and memory. Annual Review of Psychology, 43, 671–710.
45.
TrojeN.F., HuberL., LoidoltM., AustU., & FiederM. (1999). Categorical learning in pigeons: The role of texture and shape in complex static stimuli. Vision Research, 39, 353–366.
von FersenL., & DeliusJ.D. (1989). Long-term retention of many visual patterns by pigeons. Ethology, 82, 141–155.
48.
von FersenL., & LeaS.E.G. (1990). Category discrimination by pigeons using five polymorphous features. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 54, 69–84.
49.
von FersenL., ManosC, GoldowskyB., & RoitblatH. (1992). Symmetry recognition and conceptualization by dolphins. In ThomasJ. (Eds.), Marine mammal sensory systems (pp. 753–762). New York: Plenum.
50.
WagemansJ. (1997). Characteristics and models of human symmetry detection. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 1(9), 346–352.
51.
WatanabeS., LeaS.E.G., & DittrichW.H. (1993). What can we learn from experiments on pigeon concept discrimination? In ZeiglerH.P. & BischofH.-J. (Eds.), Vision, brain, and behavior in birds (pp. 351–376). Cambridge: MIT Press.
52.
YoungM.E., & WassermanE.A. (1997). Entropy detection by pigeons: Response to mixed visual displays after same–different discrimination training. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 23(2), 157–170.
53.
ZahaviA. (1975). Mate selection—a selection for a handicap. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 53, 205–214.
54.
ZentallT.R., & HoganD.E. (1975). Concept learning in the pigeon: Transfer to new matching and non-matching stimuli. American Journal of Psychology, 88, 233–244.
