Display variability and spatial organization as contributors to the pigeon's discrimination of complex visual stimuli.

Wasserman, Edward A.; Young, Michael E.; Nolan, Brian C.

doi:10.1037/0097-7403.26.2.133

Cited by 25 publications

(39 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our appeal to the processing of visual display variability or entropy represents a clear and concise account of the pigeon's same-different discrimination across a wide range of experimental investigations (Wasserman et al, 2000;Young, Wasserman, & Garner, 1997). It has also found support in studies of same-different discrimination in baboons (Wasserman, Fagot, & Young, 2001) and human beings (Young & Wasserman, 2001a).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 86%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Evidence for a conceptual account of same-different discrimination learning in the pigeon

Young

Wasserman

2001

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In 1995, Wasserman, Hugart, and Kirkpatrick-Steger reported that pigeons learned to discriminate 16-item arrays of identical black-and-white computer icons from 16-item arrays of nonidentical computer icons (Figure 1). The pigeons not only discriminated same from different arrays that were created from the set of 16 training icons, but they also discriminated additionalsame and different arrays that were created from a set of 16 novel testing icons. These data suggest that the pigeons had acquired an abstract concept that depended on the relationship among the display items, and not on the particular items themselves.But the same and the different arrays that are depicted in Figure 1 also differ in their spatial orderliness; the same arrays possess horizontal and vertical regularities that the different arrays lack. This could be considered a perceptual rather than a conceptual distinction.In order to determine whether spatial orderliness is necessary for pigeonsto discriminate same from differentarrays, Young and Wasserman (1997, Experiment 1) trained pigeons to discriminate 16-item same arrays from 16-item different arrays, in which the items were randomly placed in a subset of the 25 locations of a 5´5 grid (see Figure 2). The pigeons readily acquired this discrimination,and they showed excellent transfer to additional arrays that were created from a novel set of icons.Although placing the 16 icons into the 25 grid locations did disrupt some of the spatial orderliness of the displays, other regularities remained, particularlywhen adjacent items appeared in the rows and columns of the same arrays. Still, our prior work suggested that the pigeons may not use spatial orderliness as the basis of their same-different discrimination. Two pieces of evidence are relevant.First, in a transfer test to arrays of novel icons (Young & Wasserman, 1997), we found not only that our pigeons evidenced good discriminative transfer, but also that there was a statistically significant drop in accuracy from the familiar to the novel icon arrays from 93% to 79% (see also Wasserman et al., 1995). This generalization decrement suggests that the pigeons did attend to the individualicons in the arrays; if the pigeons had attended solely to spatial orderliness, changes in icon identity should have had no effect on performance. It is nevertheless possible that the pigeons may have attended to both icon identity and spatial orderliness.Second, we conducted another study in which we showed pigeons lists of same and different icons on a one-at-a-time basis (a successive same-different discrimination; Young, 677Copyright 2001 Psychonomic Society, Inc.This research was supported by Research Grant IBN 99-04569 from the National Science Foundation. We thank Brian Nolan and Jessie Peissig for their assistance in the collection of the data. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to M. E. Young, Department of Psychology, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL 62901 (e-mail: meyoung@siu.edu).Evidence for a conceptual accou...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 86%

“…The pigeons had earlier been trained (Wasserman, Young, & Nolan, 2000) to discriminate same from different arrays in which the icons were arranged in neat rows and columns (see Figure 1). …”

Section: Methods Subjectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evidence for a conceptual account of same-different discrimination learning in the pigeon

Young

Wasserman

2001

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Accuracy to the training stimuli averaged from 83% to 93% correct and accuracy to the testing stimuli averaged from 71% to 79% correct; in each case, choice accuracy reliably exceeded the chance score of 50% correct. Such robust discrimination learning and stimulus generalization attest to the pigeon's acquisition of an abstract same-different concept (for more on the nature of this concept, see Wasserman, Young, & Nolan, 2000;Young, Wasserman, & Dalrymple, 1997;. Should these results be taken at face value?…”

Section: Same/different Learning Using Multiple-item Displays: Effectmentioning

confidence: 99%

Concept Learning in Animals

Zentall¹,

Wasserman²,

Lazareva³

et al. 2008

CCBR

Self Cite

161

141

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Generally speaking, the study of concepts in cognitive psychology is anthropocentric with respect to both content and theory. A broader comparative perspective on the various forms of concept learning not only provides a more inclusive view of conceptual behavior, but it also provides a more objective perspective from which to identify underlying processes. We suggest that several of the major varieties of conceptual classes claimed to be uniquely human are also exhibited by nonhuman animals. We present evidence for the formation of several sorts of conceptual stimulus classes by nonhuman animals: perceptual classes involving classification according to the shared attributes of objects, associative classes or functional equivalences in which stimuli form a class based on common associations, relational classes, in which the conceptual relationship between or among stimuli defines the class, and relations between relations, in which the conceptual (analogical) relationship is defined by the relation between classes of stimuli. We conclude that not only are nonhuman animals capable of acquiring a wide variety of concepts, but that the underlying processes that determine concept learning are also likely to be quite similar.

show abstract

“…Heretofore, the pigeon's discrimination of visual variability has closely accorded with its use of entropy as an underlying psychological dimension (although other factors, such as selective attention, may also play a role; Wasserman, Young, & Nolan, 2000). To illustrate, after pigeons are trained on two disparate entropy values, testing on intermediate entropy values reveals the familiar Sshaped sigmoid, a hallmark of dimensional stimulus control in psychophysics (e.g., Blough, 1996).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%