Abstract
Many species have demonstrated the capacity to learn abstract concepts. Recent studies have shown that the quantity of stimuli used during training plays a critical role in how subjects learn abstract concepts. As the number of stimuli available in the training set increases, so too does performance on novel combinations. The role of set size has been explored with learning the concept of matching and same/different but not with learning the concept of difference. In the present study, pigeons were trained in a non-matching-to-sample task with an initial training set of three stimuli followed by transfer tests to novel stimuli. The training set was progressively doubled eight times with learning and transfer following each expansion. Transfer performance increased from chance level (50 %) at the smallest set size to a level equivalent to asymptotic training performance at the two largest training set sizes (384, 768). This progressive novel-stimulus transfer function of a non-matching (difference) rule is discussed in comparison with results from a similar experiment where pigeons were trained on a matching rule.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
April LB, Bruce K, Galizio M (2013) The magic number 70 (plus or minus 20): variables determining performance in the rodent odor span task. Learn Motiv 44:143–158
Aust U, Steurer MM (2012) Learning of an oddity rule by pigeons in a four-choice touch-screen procedure. Anim Cogn 16:321–341
Bhatt RS, Wright AA (1992) Concept learning by monkeys with video picture images and a touch screen. J Exp Anal Behav 57:219–225
Bodily KD, Katz JS, Wright AA (2008) Matching-to-sample abstract-concept learning by pigeons. J Exp Psychol Anim B 34:178–184. doi:10.1037/0097-7403.34.1.178
Bovet D, Vauclair J (2001) Judgment of conceptual identity in monkeys. Psychon Bull Rev 8:470–475
Brown MF, Sayde JM (2013) Same/different discrimination by bumblebee colonies. Anim Cogn 16:117–125
Bukatko D, Daehler MW (2011) Child development: a thematic approach. Wadsworth Publishing Company, Boston
Cook RG, Fagot J (2009) First trial rewards promote 1-trial learning and prolonged memory in pigeon and baboon. Proc Natl Acad Sci 106:9530–9533
Day RL, Coe RL, Kendal JR, Laland KN (2003) Neophilia, innovation and social learning: a study of intergeneric differences in callitrichid monkeys. Anim Behav 65:559–571
Gentner D (1988) Metaphor as structure mapping: the relational shift. Child Dev 59:47–59
Ginsburg N (1957) Matching in pigeons. J Comp Physiol Psychol 50:261–263
Herman LM, Hovancik JR, Gory JD, Bradshaw GL (1989) Generalization of visual matching by a bottlenosed dolphin (Tursiops truncatus): evidence for invariance of cognitive performance with visual and auditory materials. J Exp Psychol Anim B 15:124
Kastak D, Schusterman RJ (1994) Transfer of visual identity matching-to-sample in two california sea lions (Zalophus californianus). Anim Learn Behav 22:427–435
Katz JS, Wright AA (2006) Same/different abstract-concept learning by pigeons. J Exp Psychol Anim B 32:80–86. doi:10.1037/0097-7403.32.1.80
Katz JS, Wright AA, Bachevalier J (2002) Mechanisms of same-different abstract-concept learning by rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta). J Exp Psychol Anim B 28:358–368. doi:10.1037//0097-7403.28.4.358
Katz JS, Wright AA, Bodily KD (2007) Issues in the comparative cognition of abstract-concept learning. Comp Cogn Behav Rev 2:79–92. doi:10.3819/ccbr.2008.20005.Issues
Katz JS, Bodily KD, Wright AA (2008) Learning strategies in matching to sample: if-then and configural learning by pigeons. Behav Process 77:223–230
Kaulfuß P, Mills DS (2008) Neophilia in domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) and its implication for studies of dog cognition. Anim Cogn 11:553–556
Lazareva OF, Wasserman EA (2010) Category learning and concept learning in birds. In: Mareschal D, Quinn PC, Lea SE (eds) The making of human concepts. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Lombardi CM (2008) Matching and oddity relational learning by pigeons (Columba livia): transfer from color to shape. Anim Cogn 11:67–74. doi:10.1007/s10071-007-0087-2
Lombardi CM, Fachinelli CC, Delius JD (1984) Oddity of visual patterns conceptualized by pigeons. Anim Learn Behav 12:2–6
Mishkin M, Delacour J (1975) An analysis of short-term visual memory in the monkey. J Exp Psychol Anim B 1:326
Moon LE, Harlow HF (1955) Analysis of oddity learning by rhesus monkeys. J Comp Physciol Psychol 48:188
Pepperberg IM (1987) Acquisition of the same/different concept by an African Grey parrot (Psittacus erithacus): learning with respect to categories of color, shape, and material. Anim Learn Behav 15:423–432
Piaget J, Inhelder B (1969) The psychology of the child (trans: Weaver H). Basic Books, New York (Original work published 1966)
Premack D (1978) On the abstractness of human concepts: why it would be difficult to talk to a pigeon. In: Hulse SH, Fowler H, Honig WK (eds) Cognitive processes in animal behavior. Erlbuam, Hillsdale, pp 423–451
Premack D (1983) The codes of man and beasts. Behav Brain Sci 6:125–167
Schmidtke KA, Katz JS, Wright AA (2010) Differential outcomes facilitate same/different concept learning. Anim Cogn 13:583–589
Thompson RKR (1995) Natural and relational concepts in animals. In: Roitblat H, Meyer JA (eds) Comparative approaches to cognitive science. Bradford, MIT Press, Cambridge
Urcuioli PJ (1977) Transfer of oddity-from-sample performance in pigeons. J Exp Anal Behav 25:195–202
von Fersen L, Delius JD (1989) Long-term retention of many visual patterns by pigeons. Ethology 82:141–155
Wasserman EA, DeVolder CL, Coppage DJ (1992) Non-similarity-based conceptualization in pigeons via secondary or mediated generalization. Psychol Sci 3(6):374–379
Wasserman EA, Hugar JA, Kirkpatrick-Steger K (1995) Pigeons show same-different conceptualization after training with complex visual stimuli. J Exp Psychol Anim B 21(3):248–252
Wasserman EA, Fagot J, Young ME (2001) Same–different conceptualization by baboons (Papio papio): the role of entropy. J Comp Psychol 115(1):42
Wilson B, Mackintosh NJ, Boakes RA (1985) Matching and oddity learning in the pigeon: transfer effects and the absence of relational learning. J Exp Psychol 37:295–311. doi:10.1080/14640748508401172
Wright AA (1997) Concept learning and learning strategies. Psychol Sci 8:119–123. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.1997.tb00693.x
Wright AA, Delius JD (2005) Learning processes in matching and oddity: the oddity preference effect and sample reinforcement. J Exp Psychol Anim B 31:425–432. doi:10.1037/0097-7403.31.4.425
Wright AA, Katz JS (2006) Mechanisms of same/different concept learning in primates and avians. Behav Process 72:234–254
Wright AA, Katz JS (2007) Generalization hypothesis of abstract-concept learning: learning strategies and related issues in Macaca mulatta, Cebus apella, and Columba livia. J Comp Psychol 121:387
Wright AA, Lickteig MT (2010) What is learned when concept learning fails? A theory of restricted-domain relational learning. Learn Motiv 41:273–286
Wright AA, Rivera JJ, Katz JS, Bachevalier J (2003) Abstract-concept learning and list-memory processing by capuchin and rhesus monkeys. J Exp Psychol Anim B 29:184–198
Zentall TR, Hogan DE (1974) Abstract concept learning in the pigeon. J Exp Psychol 102:393–398. doi:10.1037/h0035970
Zentall TR, Edwards CA, Moore BS, Hogan DE (1981) Identity: the basis for both matching and oddity learning in pigeons. J Exp Psychol Anim B 7:70–86
Acknowledgments
We wish to thank Adam M. Goodman, John F. Magnotti, Andrea M. Thompkins, and Kent D. Bodily for their careful assistance in conducting this experiment. Portions of this experiment were used in Thomas A. Daniel’s Masters Thesis.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no competing financial interests.
Ethical standard
This experiment complied with current US law and following the relevant ethical guidelines for animal research (IACUC approved and conducted in AAALAC approved facilities).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Daniel, T.A., Wright, A.A. & Katz, J.S. Abstract-concept learning of difference in pigeons. Anim Cogn 18, 831–837 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-015-0849-1
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-015-0849-1