Abstract
Seventeen African dwarf goats (adult females) were trained on oddity tasks using an automated learning device. One odd stimulus and three identical nonodd stimuli were presented on a screen divided into four sectors; the sector for the odd stimulus was varied pseudorandomly. Responses to the odd stimulus were deemed to be correct and were reinforced with food. In phase 1, the goats were trained on eight stimulus configurations. From trial to trial the odd discriminandum was either a + symbol or the letter S, and the nonodd discriminandum was the symbol not used as the odd one. In phase 2, the animals were similarly trained using an unfilled triangle or a filled (i.e., solid black) circle. In phase 3, three new discriminanda were used, an unfilled, small circle with radiating lines, an unfilled heart-shaped symbol, and an unfilled oval; which of the three discriminanda was odd and nonodd was varied from trial to trial. Following these training phases, a transfer test was given, which involved 24 new discriminanda sets. These were presented twice for a total of 48 transfer test trials. Results early in training showed approximately 25% correct, which might be expected by chance in a four-choice task. After 500–2,000 trials, results improved to approximately 40–44% correct. The best-performing subject reached 60–80% correct during training. On the transfer test, this subject had 47.9% correct and that significantly exceeded 25% expected by chance. This finding suggests that some exceptional individuals of African dwarf goats are capable of learning the oddity concept.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
For the oddity-from-sample task such evidence was obtained for pigeons (Lombardi et al. 1984), corvid birds (Smirnova et al. 2000) and even honey-bees (Giurfa et al. 2001). Pigeons were also found to solve the same–different discrimination task in which two response keys were associated with the two alternative relations rather than the two presented stimuli (Wright et al. 1984; Wasserman et al. 1995). However, these procedures do not seem to be directly comparable to the oddity task.
References
Bailey AM, Thomas RK (1998) An investigation of oddity concept learning by rats. Psychol Rec 48:333–344
Baldwin BA (1979) Operant studies on shape discrimination in goats. Physiol Behav 23: 455–459
Bogartz RS (1965) The criterion method: some analyses and remarks. Psychol Bull 64:1–14
Boyd OB, Warren JM (1957) Solution of oddity problems by cats. J Comp Psychol 50:258–260
Czeschlik T (1998) Animal cognition—the phylogeny and ontogeny of cognitive abilities. Anim Cogn 1:1–2
D´Amato MR, Salmon DP, Colombo M (1985) Extents and limits of the matching concept in monkeys ( Cebus apella) J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 11:35–51
Franz H (2001) Zum Einfluss der Trainingsmethode auf das Lernverhalten von Zwergziegen am Computer. Arch Tierz Dummerstorf 44:553–560
Franz H, Reichart H (1999) Der Feldmonitor—eine neue Möglichkeit der Lernforschung mit Tieren und Ergebnisse bei visuellen Differenzierungsaufgaben von Zwergziegen. Arch Tierz Dummerstorf 42:481–493
Franz H, Roitberg E (2001) Ein Vergleich des Lernerfolges von Zwergziegen bei simultaner Zweifach- oder Vierfachwahlmöglichkeit in visuellen Differenzierungsaufgaben. Arch Tierz Dummerstorf 44:661–669
Franz H, Roitberg E, Löhrke B, Nürnberg G, Dietl G, Kinzelbach R (2002) Visual discrimination learning of group housed goats at an automated learning device. Arch Tierz Dummerstorf 45:387–401
Friede A (1972) Abstraktionsversuche auf "Gleich" gegen "Ungleich" mit Dohlen. Z Tierpsychol 30:383–404
Giurfa M, Zhang SW, Jenett A, Menzel R, Srinivasan MV (2001) The concepts of 'sameness' and 'difference' in an insect. Nature 410:930–933
Harlow HF (1958) The evolution of learning. In: Roe A, Simpson GG (eds) Behavior and evolution. Yale University Press, New Haven, pp 269–290
Lock AE, Colombo M (1996) Cognitive abilities in a comparative perspective. In: Lock AE, Peters CRE (eds) Handbook of human symbolic evolution. Clarendon, Oxford, pp 596–643
Lombardi CM, Fachinelli CG, Delius JD (1984) Oddity of visual patterns conceptualized by pigeons. Anim Learn Behav 12:2–6
Meyer DR, Harlow HF (1949) The development of transfer of responses to patterning by monkeys. J Comp Physiol Psychol 42:454–462
Moon LE, Harlow HF (1955) Analysis of oddity learning by rhesus monkeys. J Comp Psychol 48:188–194
Noble CS, Thomas RK (1970) Oddity learning in the squirrel monkey. Psychonom Sci 19:305–307
Pastore N (1954) Discrimination learning in the canary. J Comp Physiol Psychol 47:389–390
Pepperberg IM (1987) Acquisition of the same/different concept by an African grey parrot ( Psyttacus erithacus): learning with respect to categories of color shape and material. Anim Learn Behav 15:423–432
Rensch B, Dücker G (1959) Versuche über die visuelle Generalisation bei einer Schleichkatze. Z Tierpsychol 16:671–692
Robinson EW (1933) A preliminary experiment on abstraction in a monkey. J Comp Psychol 16:231–236
Smirnova AA, Lazareva OF, Zorina ZA (2000) Use of number by crows: investigation by matching and oddity learning. J Exp Anal Behav 73:163–176
Soltysik S, Baldwin B (1972) The performance of goats in triple choice delayed response tasks. Acta Neurobiol Exp 32:73–66
Strong PN, Hedges M (1966) Comparative studies in simple oddity learning 1 cats racoons monkeys and chimpanzees. Psychonom Sci 5:13–14
Thomas RK (1980) Evolution of intelligence: an approach to its assessment. Brain Behav Evol 17:452–474
Thomas RK (1996) Investigating cognitive abilities in animals: unrealized potential. Cogn Brain Res 3:157–166
Thomas RK, Boyd MG (1973) A comparison of Cebus albifrons and Saimiri sciureus on oddity performance. Anim Learn Behav 1:151–153
Thomas RK, Frost T (1983) Oddity and dimension-abstracted oddity (DAO) in squirrel monkeys. Am J Psychol 96:51–64
Thomas RK, Noble LM (1988) Visual and olfactory oddity learning in rats: what evidence is necessary to show conceptual behavior. Anim Learn Behav 16:157–163
Thompson RKR (1995) Natural and relational concepts in animals In: Roitblat HL, Herbert L (eds) Comparative approach to cognitive science. Bradford Books MIT Press, Cambridge Mass., pp 175–224
Wasserman EA (1993) Comparative cognition: beginning the second century of the study of animal intelligence. Psychol Bull 113:211–228
Wasserman EA, Hugart JA, Kirkpatrick SK (1995) Pigeons show same–different conceptualization after training with complex visual stimuli. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 21:248–252
Williams DI (1967) Discrimination learning in the pigeon in relation to the number of negative stimuli. Anim Behav 15:79–81
Wilson B, Mackintosh NJ, Boakes RA (1985) Transfer of relational rules in matching and oddity learning by pigeons and corvids. Q J Exp Psychol 37B:313–332
Wodinsky J, Bitterman ME (1953) The solution of oddity-problems by the rat. Am J Psychol 66:137–140
Wright AA, Santiago HC, Urcuioli PJ, Sands SF (1984) Monkey and pigeon acquisition of same/different concept using pictorial stimuli In: Commons ML, Herrnstein RJ, Wagner AR (eds) Quantitative analysis of behavior, vol IV. Discrimination processes. Ballinger, Cambridge, Mass., pp 295–317
Zerbolio DJ, Royalty JL (1983) Matching and oddity conditional discrimination in the goldfish as avoidance responces: evidence for conceptual avoidance learning. Anim Learn Behav 11:341–348
Acknowledgements
The authors greatly appreciate the expert technical assistance of K. Siebert and D. Sehland and their untiring care for the animals and the training technique. We are thankful to O. Lazareva for valuable methodological advice and to G. Manteuffel and B. Puppe for their critical comments on an earlier version of the manuscript. Our special thanks go to R.K. Thomas for his assistance with the manuscript. Critical comments of the two anonymous reviewers are also appreciated. This research was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (grant F 1481/1–1 to H. Franz).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Roitberg, E., Franz, H. Oddity learning by African dwarf goats ( Capra hircus). Anim Cogn 7, 61–67 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-003-0190-y
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-003-0190-y