Perception of the corridor illusion by baboons (Papio papio)

Barbet, Isabelle; Fagot, Joël

doi:10.1016/s0166-4328(01)00393-x

Cited by 58 publications

(62 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In accordance with this proposal, we compiled findings from non-human animal species across six geometrical illusions within three different environmental contexts (aquatic, terrestrial, aerial). To the best of our knowledge, at the present time, research on susceptibility to geometrical illusions in nonhuman animals has been restricted to the following species: homing pigeons, ringneck doves, bantam chickens, Fujita (1996) 2 Macaca mulatta (rhesus monkeys); 8-year-old male, 7-year-old female Size-classification task Yes Timney and Keil (1996) 2 Equus caballus (horses); both female, aged 7 and 15 years Two-choice discrimination task Yes Fujita (1997) 3 Macaca mulatta (rhesus monkeys); 1 male, 2 females aged 5 and 6 years Size-classification task Yes 1 Pan troglodytes (chimpanzee); female aged 18 years Barbet and Fagot (2002) African gray parrots, baboons, capuchin monkeys, rhesus monkeys, chimpanzees, redtail splitfin fish, bamboo sharks, horses, rats, and bottlenose dolphins (Fig. 1).…”

Section: Does Visual (Mis)perception Differ Across Ecological Niches?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Why do animals differ in their susceptibility to geometrical illusions?

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In humans, geometrical illusions are thought to reflect mechanisms that are usually helpful for seeing the world in a predictable manner. These mechanisms deceive us given the right set of circumstances, correcting visual input where a correction is not necessary. Investigations of non-human animals' susceptibility to geometrical illusions have yielded contradictory results, suggesting that the underlying mechanisms with which animals see the world may differ across species. In this review, we first collate studies showing that different species are susceptible to specific illusions in the same or reverse direction as humans. Based on a careful assessment of these findings, we then propose several ecological and anatomical factors that may affect how a species perceives illusory stimuli. We also consider the usefulness of this information for determining whether sight in different species might be more similar to human sight, being influenced by contextual information, or to how machines process and transmit information as programmed. Future testing in animals could provide new theoretical insights by focusing on establishing dissociations between stimuli that may or may not alter perception in a particular species. This information could improve our understanding of the mechanisms behind illusions, but also provide insight into how sight is subjectively experienced by different animals, and the degree to which vision is innate versus acquired, which is difficult to examine in humans.

show abstract

Section: Does Visual (Mis)perception Differ Across Ecological Niches?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Why do animals differ in their susceptibility to geometrical illusions?

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In a previous study assessing susceptibility to the Ebbinghaus-Titchener illusion, reversed susceptibility was found in this same group of dogs when presented with two different illusory contexts , and two studies have failed to observe canine susceptibility to the Delboeuf illusion Miletto Petrazzini et al, 2017). Baboons, the only other terrestrial species to have been assessed on the Ebbinghaus-Titchener illusion, failed to demonstrate susceptibility to the illusion (Barbet & Fagot, 2002), and while some terrestrial species, such as chimpanzees, macaques and capuchin monkeys Parrish, Brosnan, & Beran, 2015), have demonstrated human-like susceptibility to the Delboeuf illusion, others, like ring-tailed lemurs, have not (Santacà et al, 2017). Yet, it is important to note that these studies emphasize the methodological constraints and confounds that arise when evaluating illusion susceptibility in animals.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 71%

“…Yet, it is important to note that these studies emphasize the methodological constraints and confounds that arise when evaluating illusion susceptibility in animals. Presentation style, training procedures, stimuli design, the kind of paradigm used, and failure to reliably differentiate control stimuli have all been observed to affect the perception of the Ebbinghaus-Titchener and Delboeuf illusions in animals (Barbet & Fagot, 2002;Parrish et al, 2015;Santacà et al, 2017). Future research should examine vertical Ponzo illusion susceptibility using additional pictorial linear perspective cues, as has been done in horses (Timney & Keil, 1996), or within alternative testing paradigms (e.g., absolute classification, same-different tasks).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Across these tests assessing susceptibility to the Ponzo illusion, our evidence converged on the conclusion that, as a group, dogs are not susceptible to the illusion. These findings are of particular interest as, to date, some individual pigeons (Fujita, Blough, & Blough, 1991), Sprague-Dawley rats (Nakagawa, 2002), horses (Timney & Keil, 1996), rhesus macaques (Bayne & Davis, 1983;Fujita, 1997), baboons (Barbet & Fagot, 2002), and chimpanzees (Fujita, 1997;Imura, Tomonaga, & Yagi, 2008), have all demonstrated human-like susceptibility to the Ponzo illusion. Figure 1.…”

mentioning

confidence: 98%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Do Dogs Demonstrate Susceptibility to a Vertically Presented Ponzo Illusion?

Byosiere¹,

Feng²,

Wuister³

et al. 2018

AB&C

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

-One way to uncover visual capabilities in animals is to assess perception of geometric illusions. Recently, we found that dogs did not demonstrate susceptibility to the Ponzo illusion when it was presented in a variety of contexts, a unique result as all other published reports of nonhuman animal species tested on the illusion have demonstrated human-like susceptibility. Two important variables were not considered in our previous study. First, the stimuli were presented horizontally, whereas the more traditional presentation is vertical. Second, it is not known whether dogs can differentiate physical size differences small enough to facilitate perception of the Ponzo illusion. To investigate these issues, we tested the same dogs from our previous study on a vertical version of the Ponzo illusion and on a size discrimination task. Dogs did not demonstrate illusion susceptibility at the group level, although one dog was susceptible. In general, they were better able to detect size differences when the absolute size of the stimuli was large. Nonetheless, with stimuli approximately the same size as those used to test susceptibility to the Ponzo illusion, all eight dogs were able to discriminate between circles that differed in length by 20%, with four discriminating 10% size differences and none able to discriminate 5% differences. These findings suggest that at least some dogs are capable of perceiving the average size difference that humans perceive when observing the Ponzo illusion, but that susceptibility to this illusion is variable and weak, regardless of whether it is presented in either a vertical or horizontal format.

show abstract

“…One example of this is Ebbinghaus-Titchener illusion (Ebbinghaus, 1902;Weintraub, 1979; Figure 1), which has been presented to a variety of nonhuman animal species but with highly variable results. Baboons do not experience the illusion (Parron & Fagot, 2007) despite showing other visual illusions (e.g., Barbet & Fagot, 2002;Benhar & Samuel, 1982). This might suggest human-uniqueness in seeing this illusion, as would the reported reversed Ebbinghaus-Titchener illusions in pigeons (Nakamura, Watanabe, & Fujita, 2008) and bantam chickens (Nakamura, Watanabe, & Fujita, 2014).…”

Section: Perceptual Illusionsmentioning

confidence: 89%

To Err Is (Not Only) Human: Fallibility as a Window Into Primate Cognition

Beran¹

2017

CCBR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Human cognition affords our species an excellent toolbox for solving problems. Many nonhuman animal species appear to share with humans some of these tools. However, human cognition also is fallible. Susceptibility to perceptual illusions, misrepresentation of probabilities, cognitive biases, faulty memory, and heuristics all present sources of error from which behavior is suboptimal in the pursuit of goals. Some nonhuman species share these perceptual and cognitive biases with humans. Examples of this are described for nonhuman primates, ranging from perceptual illusions to humanlike failures on games of probability such as the Monty Hall Problem. Sometimes the performances of nonhuman primates mirror those of humans, but there are exceptions. Given that other species do experience things erroneously and make errors in judgment, it is an exciting question of whether they also might generate any strategies to offset their fallibility. Two examples to suggest that they do are provided from research with chimpanzees. One is of strategic self-distraction in the face of tempting rewards in a delay of gratification task. The other is of information-seeking behaviors in different contexts where chimpanzees have different types of information. This research, and that of many other groups, shows the value of examining perceptual and cognitive errors across species, and how different individuals and different species may be equipped psychologically to deal with the possibility of these errors occurring. Keywords: primate cognition, perception, illusions, self-control, metacognition IntroductionThe 20th century saw a shift in how humans thought about nonhuman animals (hereafter, animals), their behavior, and the cognitive processes that might underlie their behavior. Comparative cognition emerged as a strong discipline in the second half of the century, largely as a result of the broader cognitive revolution in human psychology, continued developments in ethology, and new opportunities to study a diverse range of species (Shettleworth, 2010). Earlier comparative psychologists certainly took an interest in aspects of cognition (see Dewsbury, 1984Dewsbury, , 2000Dewsbury, , 2013, but researchers in the second half of the century provided new approaches to understanding animal minds. Initially these approaches focused largely on traditional aspects of human cognitive psychology, including memory, perceptual capacities, and learning phenomenon (e.g., Honig & Fetterman, 1992;Hulse, Fowler, & Honig, 1978;Roitblat, Bever, & Terrace, 1984), as they might reflect the use of mental representations and other information-processing approaches for interacting with the world. Later, 58COMPARATIVE COGNITION & BEHAVIOR REVIEWS Beran research increasingly focused on questions that covered nearly every topic found in a human cognitive psychology textbook, and even questions that were not typically discussed in such sources (e.g., theory of mind, deception, mind reading, cooperative decision making, metacognition, mental time travel, and ot...

show abstract

Perception of the corridor illusion by baboons (Papio papio)

Cited by 58 publications

References 9 publications

Why do animals differ in their susceptibility to geometrical illusions?

Why do animals differ in their susceptibility to geometrical illusions?

Do Dogs Demonstrate Susceptibility to a Vertically Presented Ponzo Illusion?

To Err Is (Not Only) Human: Fallibility as a Window Into Primate Cognition

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About