Natural Images: A Lingua Franca for Primates?

Abstract

Abstract:Primates in the laboratory often perform tasks that involve discrimination of pictures shown on computer screens. It is not clear, however, if they perceive the pictures as symbolic representations of real objects. In this study we tested the ability of two monkeys (Macaca mulatta) to categorize pictures on a computer screen. The pictures were photographs of objects from 17 categories, which were grouped as natural and familiar, natural and unfamiliar, or artificial and unfamiliar. The monkeys learnt the categories of the natural and familiar objects faster than those of the artificial and unfamiliar objects. Nevertheless, once they had learnt the categories, they were just as fast and accurate at generalizing to new exemplars of artificial and unfamiliar objects. This finding suggests that the monkeys are able to extract similarities and form categories from a small number of stimuli differing widely across size, color and viewpoint, and for which they have no prior internal representation.

Two perils of binary categorization: Why the study of concepts can’t afford true/false testing

“…Herrnstein et al, 1976;Sigala, 2009;Vonk, 2013) nevertheless tested only one or two stimuli at a time. Others have required that subjects match a stimulus to one of four categories (Bhatt et al, 1988;Lazareva et al, 2004).…”

The Contribution of fMRI in the Study of Visual Categorization and Expertise

“…They reached the conclusion that macaques treat pictorial stimuli categorically cf. (Sigala, 2009). Several years later (Sugihara et al, 1998) employed novel stimuli (computer-generated 3D animals) to test the usefulness of MDS in the study of object recognition, following a previous demonstration with the human visual system (Cutzu and Edelman, 1996).…”

Two perils of binary categorization: Why the study of concepts can’t afford true/false testing

“…Many studies that trained more than two categories (e.g. Herrnstein et al, 1976;Sigala, 2009;Vonk, 2013) nevertheless tested only one or two stimuli at a time. Others have required that subjects match a stimulus to one of four categories (Bhatt et al, 1988;Lazareva et al, 2004).…”