Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Do chickens (Gallus gallus f. domestica) decompose visual figures?

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Animal Cognition Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

To investigate whether learning to discriminate between visual compound stimuli depends on decomposing them into constituting features, hens were first trained to discriminate four features (red, green, horizontal, vertical) from two dimensions (colour, line orientation). After acquisition, hens were trained with compound stimuli made up from these dimensions in two ways: a separable (line on a coloured background) stimulus and an integral one (coloured line). This compound training included a reversal of reinforcement of only one of the two dimensions (half-reversal). After having achieved the compound stimulus discrimination, a second dimensional training identical to the first was performed. Finally, in the second compound training the other dimension was reversed. Two major results were found: (1) an interaction between the dimension reversed and the type of compound stimulus: in compound training with colour reversal, separable compound stimuli were discriminated worse than integral compounds and vice versa in compound training with line orientation reversed. (2) Performance in the second compound training was worse than in the first one. The first result points to a similar mode of processing for separable and integral compounds, whereas the second result shows that the whole stimulus is psychologically superior to its constituting features. Experiment 2 repeated experiment 1 using line orientation stimuli of reversed line and background brightness. Nevertheless, the results were similar to experiment 1. Results are discussed in the framework of a configural exemplar theory of discrimination that assumes the representation of the whole stimulus situation combined with transfer based on a measure of overall similarity.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. We use the terms exemplar and instance interchangeably but will restrict ourselves to exemplar. The expression configural exemplar refers to the representation of a stimulus as a configuration without decomposing it into features. This is a characteristic of holistic stimulus processing.

  2. We think of “feature” as a computational analogue to the experimenter-based “value on a stimulus dimension,” which we regard as neutral in assumptions about stimulus processing, e.g. the value red on the colour dimension and the processed stimulus feature RED.

References

  • Anderson JR (1990) The adaptive character of thought. Erlbaum, Hillsdale

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson JR (1991) The adaptive nature of human categorization. Psychol Rev 98:409–429

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Astley SL, Wasserman EA (1992) Categorical discrimination and generalization in pigeons: all negative stimuli are not created equal. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 18:193–207

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blough DS (1972) Recognition by the pigeon of stimuli varying in two dimensions. J Exp Anal Behav 18:345–367

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown MF, Morrison SK (1990) Element and compound matching-to-sample performance in pigeons: the roles of information load and training history. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 16:185–192

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bruner JS, Goodnow JJ, Austin GA (1956) A study of thinking. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Cook RG, Riley DA, Brown MF (1992) Spatial and configural factors in compound stimulus processing by pigeons. Anim Learn Behav 20:41–55

    Google Scholar 

  • Cox JK, D’Amato MR (1982) Matching to compound samples by monkeys (Cebus apella): shared attention or generalization decrement? J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 8:209–225

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • D’Amato MR, Salmon DP (1984) Cognitive processes in cebus monkeys. In: Roitblat HL, Bever TG, Terrace HS (eds) Animal cognition. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, pp 149–168

    Google Scholar 

  • Ewert JP (1992) Neuroethology of an object features relating algorithm and its modification by learning. Rev Neurosci 3:45–63

    Google Scholar 

  • Fersen L von, Delius J (1989) Long-term retention of many visual patterns by pigeons. Ethology 82:141–155

    Google Scholar 

  • Foard CF, Kemler Nelson DG (1984) Holistic and analytic modes of processing: the multiple determinants of perceptual analysis. J Exp Psychol Gen 113:94–111

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Frahm HD, Rehkämper G (1998) Allometric comparison of the brain and brain structures in the white crested polish chicken with uncrested domestic chicken breeds. Brain Behav Evol 52:292–307

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Garner WR (1974) The processing of information and structure. Erlbaum, Potomac, Md.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gärdenfors P (2000) Conceptual spaces: the geometry of thought. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.

    Google Scholar 

  • George DN, Pearce JM (2003) Discrimination of structure II. Feature binding. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 29:107–117

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gold I, Stoljar D (1999) A neuron doctrine in the philosophy of neuroscience. Behav Brain Sci 22:809–869

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Grant DS, MacDonald SE (1986) Matching to element and compound samples in pigeons: the role of sample coding. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 12:160–171

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gregson RAM (1975) Psychometrics of similarity. Academic Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Harnad S (1987) Categorical perception: the groundwork of cognition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Huber L, Troje NF, Loidolt M, Aust U, Grass D (2000) Natural categorization through multiple feature learning in pigeons. Q J Exp Psychol 53B:341–357

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hull CL (1943) Principles of behavior: an introduction to behavior theory. Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Kemler Nelson DG (1993) Processing integral dimensions: the whole view. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 19:1105–1113

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Konorski J (1967) Integrative activity of the brain. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Lachnit H (1988) Convergent validation of information processing constructs with Pavlovian methodology. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 14:143–152

    Google Scholar 

  • Lamb MR (1988) Selective attention: effects of cueing on the processing of different types of compound stimuli. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 14:96–104

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lamb MR, Riley DA (1981) Effects of element arrangement on the processing of compound stimuli in pigeons (Columba livia). J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 7:45–58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leith CR, Maki WS Jr (1977) Effects of compound configuration on stimulus selection in the pigeon. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 3:229–239

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lockhead GR (1972) Processing dimensional stimuli: a note. Psychol Rev 79:410–419

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mackintosh NJ, McGonigle B, Holgate V, Vanderver V (1968) Factors underlying improvement in serial reversal learning. Can J Psychol 22:85–95

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Maki WS Jr, Leith CR (1973) Shared attention in pigeons. J Exp Anal Behav 19:345–349

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Maki WS Jr, Leuin TC (1972) Information processing by pigeons. Science 176:535–536

    Google Scholar 

  • McLaren IPL, Mackintosh NJ (2000) An elemental model of associative learning I. Latent inhibition and perceptual learning. Anim Learn Behav 28:2111–2146

    Google Scholar 

  • McLaren IPL, Mackintosh NJ (2002) Association learning and elemental representation II. Generalization and discrimination. Anim Learn Behav 30:177–200

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Medin DL, Schaffer MM (1978) Context theory of classification learning. Psychol Rev 85:207–238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Monahan JS, Lockhead GR (1977) Identification of integral stimuli. J Exp Psychol Gen 106:94–110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Page M (2000) Connectionist modeling in psychology: a localist manifesto. Behav Brain Sci 23:443–512

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pearce JM (1987) A model for stimulus generalization in Pavlovian conditioning. Psychol Rev 94:61–73

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pearce JM (1994) Discrimination and categorization. In: Mackintosh MJ (ed) Animal learning and cognition. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 109–134

    Google Scholar 

  • Pearce JM (2002) Evaluation and development of a connectionist theory of configural learning. Anim Learn Behav 30:73–95

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pearce JM, Bouton ME (2001) Theories of associative learning in animals. Annu Rev Psychol 52:111–139

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pearce JM, Wilson PN (1990) Configural associations in discrimination learning. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 16:250–261

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ray BA (1969) Selective attention: the effects of combining stimuli which control incompatible behavior. J Exp Anal Behav 12:539–550

    Google Scholar 

  • Rehkämper G, Haase E, Frahm HD (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 Behav Evol 31:141–149

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rescorla RA, Wagner AR (1972) A theory of Pavlovian conditioning: variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and nonreinforcement. In: Black AH, Prokasy WF (eds) Classical conditioning, vol 2. Current research and theory. Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York, pp 64–99

    Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds GS (1961) Attention in pigeon. J Exp Anal Behav 4:203–208

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Riley DA, Roitblat HL (1978) Selective attention and related cognitive processes in pigeons. In: Hulse SH, Fowler H, Honig WK (eds) Cognitive processes in animal behavior. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, N.J., pp 249–276

    Google Scholar 

  • Roitblat HL, Fersen L von (1992) Comparative cognition: representations and processes in learning and memory. Annu Rev Psychol 43:671–710

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shanks DR (1995) The psychology of associative learning. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Siegel S, Allan LG (1996) The widespread influence of the Rescorla–Wagner model. Psychon Bull Rev 3:314–321

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith LB, Evans P (1989) Similarity, identity, and dimensions: perceptual classification in children and adults. In: Shepp BE, Ballesteros S (eds) Object perception: structure and process. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, N.J., pp 325–356

    Google Scholar 

  • Sutherland NS, Mackintosh NJ (1971) Mechanisms of animal discrimination learning. Academic Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Tanaka K (1993) Neuronal mechanisms of object recognition. Science 262:685–688

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson RF (1965) The neural basis of stimulus generalization. In: Mostofsky DI (ed) Stimulus generalization. Stanford University Press, Stanford, Calif., pp 154–178

    Google Scholar 

  • Vallortigara G, Zanforlin M (1989) Place and object learning in chicks (Gallus gallus domesticus). J Comp Psychol 103:201–209

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vallortigara G, Zanforlin M, Compostella S (1990) Perceptual organization in animal learning: cues or objects? Ethology 85:89–102

    Google Scholar 

  • Vaughan W Jr, Greene SL (1984) Pigeon visual memory capacity. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 10:256–271

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wagner AR (2003) Context-sensitive elemental theory. Q J Exp Psychol B 56:7–29

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wagner AR, Brandon SE (2001) A componential theory of Pavlovian conditioning. In: Mowrer RR, Klein SB (eds) Handbook of contemporary learning theories. Erlbaum, Mahwah, N.J., pp 23–64

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner AR, Rescorla RA (1972) Inhibition in Pavlovian conditioning: application of a theory. In: Halliday MS, Boakes RA (eds) Inhibition and learning. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 301–336

    Google Scholar 

  • Ward TB (1983) Response tempo and separable-integral responding: evidence for an integral-to-separable processing sequence in visual perception. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 9:103–112

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wasserman EA, Astley SL (1994) A behavioral analysis of concepts: its application to pigeons and children. Psychol Learn Motiv 31:73–132

    Google Scholar 

  • Werner CW, Rehkämper G (1999) Discrimination of multidimensional geometrical figures by chickens: categorization and pattern-learning. Anim Cogn 2:27–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Werner CW, Rehkämper G (2001) Categorization of multidimensional geometrical figures by chickens (Gallus gallus f. domestica): fit of basic assumptions from exemplar, feature and prototype theory. Anim Cogn 4:37–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zayan R, Vauclair J (1998) Categories as paradigms for comparative cognition. Behav Process 42:87–99

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zentall TR, Galizio M, Critchfield TS (2002) Categorization, concept learning, and behavior analyis: an introduction. J Exp Anal Behav 78:237–248

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Roul Sebastian John and Johannes Pappas for many discussions that were helpful in writing this article. Also, many thanks are due to Mike Mann for his review of previous manuscripts. This study was supported by the DFG (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft) RE-635/5-1/2.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. C. and O. Vogt Institute of Brain Research, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Universitätsstr. 1, 40225, Düsseldorf, Germany

    Christian W. Werner, Inga Tiemann, Julia Cnotka & Gerd Rehkämper

Authors
  1. Christian W. Werner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Inga Tiemann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Julia Cnotka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Gerd Rehkämper
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christian W. Werner.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Werner, C.W., Tiemann, I., Cnotka, J. et al. Do chickens (Gallus gallus f. domestica) decompose visual figures?. Anim Cogn 8, 129–140 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-004-0229-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-004-0229-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation