Object permanence in four species of psittacine birds: An African Grey parrot (Psittacus erithacus), an Illiger mini macaw (Ara maracana), a parakeet (Melopsittacus undulatus), and a cockatiel (Nymphicus hollandicus)

Pepperberg, Irene M.; Funk, Mildred Sears

doi:10.3758/bf03205244

Cited by 114 publications

(127 citation statements)

References 51 publications

(52 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

121

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The experimenter avoided giving any cues to the subjects as much as possible, for instance, by fixating on a point in the center of the wooden platform during the subject's choice. (The problem of experimenter's cuing in face-to-face procedures is discussed in a number of similar Piagetian experiments, like those by Gagnon & Doré, 1992;Pepperberg & Funk, 1990;and Pepperberg & Kozak, 1986. )…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Piaget's theory has proved useful as a framework for comparative studies (Etienne, 1984;Pepperberg & Funk, 1990). Piagetian procedures are effective in cross-species comparisons because the methodology involves very detailed observations (similar to ethological procedure) and the target activities can be done by nonverbal, action-oriented subjects (Funk, 1996).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Object Permanence in Common Marmosets (Callithrix jacchus).

Mendes

Huber²

2004

Journal of Comparative Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A series of 9 search tasks corresponding to the Piagetian Stages 3-6 of object permanence were administered to 11 common marmosets (Callithrix jacchus). Success rates varied strongly among tasks and marmosets, but the performances of most subjects were above chance level on the majority of tasks of visible and invisible displacements. Although up to 24 trials were administered in the tests, subjects did not improve their performance across trials. Errors were due to preferences for specific locations or boxes, simple search strategies, and attentional deficits. The performances of at least 2 subjects that achieved very high scores up to the successive invisible displacement task suggest that this species is able to represent the existence and the movements of unperceived objects.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Object Permanence in Common Marmosets (Callithrix jacchus).

Mendes

Huber²

2004

Journal of Comparative Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This disappearance is problematic because the organism must maintain a representation of the object in memory, as well as generate an expectation about where it will later appear (Hauser 2001). Humans and a variety of non-human animals (e.g., gorilla-Gorilla gorilla gorilla, Japanese macaque-Macaca fuscata, African Grey parrot-Psittacus erithacus, domesticated dogs-Canis familiaris) can maintain representations of hidden objects over time (e.g., Piaget 1952;Natale et al 1986;Doré and Dumas 1987;Pepperburg and Funk 1990;Baillargeon and DeVos 1991;Gagnon and Doré 1992;Fiset et al 2003). However, the factors underlying predictive reaching, searching, and looking for objects that have become hidden from view are not well understood, especially in organisms other than humans and non-human primates.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Domesticated dogs’ (Canis familiaris) use of the solidity principle

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Organisms must often make predictions about the trajectories of moving objects. However, often these objects become hidden. To later locate such objects, the organism must maintain a representation of the object in memory and generate an expectation about where it will later appear. We explored adult dogs' knowledge and use of the solidity principle (that one solid object cannot pass through another solid object) by evaluating search behavior. Subjects watched as a treat rolled down an inclined tube into a box. The box either did or did not contain a solid wall dividing it in half. To Wnd the treat, subjects had to modify their search behavior based on the presence or absence of the wall, which either did or did not block the treat's trajectory. Dogs correctly searched the near location when the barrier was present and the far location when the barrier was absent. They displayed this behavior from the Wrst trial, as well as performed correctly when trial types were intermingled. These results suggest that dogs direct their searches in accordance with the solidity principle.

show abstract

“…In contrast, testing across a wide range of species has failed to reveal consistent evidence of success on the task in most other animals, including dolphins (Doré, Goulet, & Herman, 1991), numerous species of monkeys (e.g., de Blois et al, 1998;Natale & Antinucci, 1989), cats (e.g., Doré, 1986;Dumas, 1992), hamsters (Thinus-Blanc & Scardigli, 1981), and domestic chickens (É tienne, 1973). However, striking exceptions to this pattern of findings have come from research with dogs (e.g., Gagnon & Doré, 1992, 1993, 1994Triana & Pasnak, 1981) and psittacine birds (e.g., Pepperberg & Funk, 1990;Pepperberg & Kozak, 1986;Pepperberg, Willner, & Gravitz, 1997). In two longitudinal studies, puppies (Gagnon & Doré, 1994) and an African grey parrot (Pepperberg et al, 1997) were shown to progress through a sequence of stages on displacement tasks similar to those of human infants.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Adopting tasks that were designed for one species to test , 2002). Gagnon and Doré (1992) suggested that methodological problems in the task used with psittacine birds (Pepperberg & Funk, 1990;Pepperberg & Kozak, 1986) might have encouraged local rule learning, rendering the evidence for invisible displacement understanding in psittacines inconclusive. Local rule learning refers to the chance discovery of an action that leads to success on a task and is then simply repeated (e.g., É tienne, 1973).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Do Dogs (Canis familiaris) Understand Invisible Displacement?

Collier-Baker

Davis

Suddendorf

2004

Journal of Comparative Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) perform above chance on invisible displacement tasks despite showing few other signs of possessing the necessary representational abilities. Four experiments investigated how dogs find an object that has been hidden in 1 of 3 opaque boxes. Dogs passed the task under a variety of control conditions, but only if the device used to displace the object ended up adjacent to the target box after the displacement. These results suggest that the search behavior of dogs was guided by simple associative rules rather than mental representation of the object's past trajectory. In contrast, Experiment 5 found that on the same task, 18-and 24-month-old children showed no disparity between trials in which the displacement device was adjacent or nonadjacent to the target box.The invisible displacement task was originally conceived by Piaget (1937Piaget ( /1954) as a measure of toddlers' transition to Stage 6 in his theory of object permanence. In the classic task, the subject sees the experimenter hide a desired object under a displacement device, typically a small opaque container. The experimenter slides the displacement device under one of several hiding boxes, surreptitiously deposits the object beneath this box, and shows the subject that the displacement device is now empty. To find the object, the subject cannot rely on perceptual information alone but rather must infer the object's location by mentally representing its past trajectory (e.g., Call, 2001). The task is thus thought to provide evidence of representational thought: the ability to entertain representations of objects or events that cannot be directly perceived.As such, Piaget's invisible displacement task continues to feature strongly in both developmental and comparative research and theory. In Perner's (1991) theory of representational development, for example, passing the invisible displacement task is one of several markers of the emergence of a capacity for secondary representation. Perner suggests that prior to the middle of their 2nd year, infants have access only to primary representations; that is, they maintain a direct model of reality that is continually updated with incoming perceptual information. Passing the invisible displacement task indicates that the child can go beyond a single updating model to entertain multiple models of the world. That is, the child is able to hold in mind a model of the current world (primary representation: displacement device empty) as well as a model of the past world (secondary representation: displacement device with object under large box). By collating these two models the child can infer the likely location of the surreptitiously displaced object. Children typically begin passing the invisible displacement task at approximately 18 -24 months of age (e.g., Kramer, Hill, & Cohen, 1975;Piaget, 1937Piaget, /1954. Perner (1991) argues that several other abilities emerging in the 2nd year, such as mirror self-recognition and pretend play, also involve secondary representations. At le...

show abstract

Object permanence in four species of psittacine birds: An African Grey parrot (Psittacus erithacus), an Illiger mini macaw (Ara maracana), a parakeet (Melopsittacus undulatus), and a cockatiel (Nymphicus hollandicus)

Cited by 114 publications

References 51 publications

Object Permanence in Common Marmosets (Callithrix jacchus).

Object Permanence in Common Marmosets (Callithrix jacchus).

Domesticated dogs’ (Canis familiaris) use of the solidity principle

Do Dogs (Canis familiaris) Understand Invisible Displacement?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About