Save
PSYC513
Animal cognition
Lecture 2
Save
Share
Learn
Content
Leaderboard
Learn
Created by
Alice
Visit profile
Cards (24)
Categories are useful
help
organize
information into
meaningful
groups
=
facilitate
cognitive
processes
- perception, memory, decision-making
grouping similar items =
efficiently
process & understand
complex
information, make
predictions
,
communicate
effectively
Exemplar
theory
when encounter
new
stimulus =
compare
to all specific
examples
or instances of category we have previously
encountered
emphasizes importance of
storing
&
remembering
individual instances of a category
Prototype
theory
when encounter a new stimulus =
mentally
compare it to abstract
representation
or "prototype" we have stored for category
prototype based on an
average
of all instances of category we have encountered in past
emphasizes role of
generalized
representations
=
simplified
&
efficient
way of categorizing new stimuli
Category learning in pigeons (Herrnstein, Loveland, & Cable, 1976)
thousands of
pictures
used in training
successful
discrimination
of
novel
pictures at test
learned
categories
of
water
&
people
- even specific person
also tropical
fish
Styles of paintings - Watanabe, Sakamoto, Wakita 1995
pigeons' ability to
discriminate
paintings
= able to distinguish between
artists'
works = demonstrating level of
visual
discrimination previously thought to be
exclusive
to humans
Discrimination among multiple categories
(Bhatt, Wasserman, Reynolds, & Knauss, 1988)
4
categories learned
Novel
pictures classified
successfully
Performance
maintained
when training pictures never
repeated
Larger sets make for better categories (Bhatt, 1988)
larger
sets = poorer
learning
for training items but better
performance
on
test
items
Categorisation is capuchins is successful, but…
(D’Amato & van Sant, 1988)
Successful
discrimination
of
people
from non-people
some errors were unusual
Photographs classified as people when looked
nothing
like people
In training set, only
people
slides contained
red
Non-people test slides containing red
misclassified
Categorisation determined by features (Huber & Lenz 1993)
4
stimulus
dimensions
used = each dimension =
3
possible
values
Pigeons trained to
peck
at faces with
sum
greater than
0
- behavior
reinforced
rate of pecking response determined by sum of
features
in stimuli
aimed to assess how
pigeons
categorized
&
responded
to stimuli based on sum of features
Aust & Huber 2006
Perhaps non-human animals don’t know what pictures
stand
for - just respond based on low-level features, but…
pigeons trained to
recognize
pictures of objects through visual
categorization
task
= suggest pigeons possess
representational
insight = able to
generalize
learning to novel stimuli
highlights
cognitive
abilities of pigeons in
visual
recognition tasks -
perceptual
& categorization capabilities.
Aust & Huber 2010 - experience
investigates pigeons'
recognition
of human
body
parts in pictures
trained to
discriminate
handless
or
headless
humans & nonhumans
Some had
prior
exposure to real human heads - others didn't
without prior experience of heads
failed
to show
preference
to pictures of missing parts over arbiturary skin patches
Suggests evidence of
representational
insight in pigeons
Highlights influence of real-world
experience
on visual categorization tasks
Concrete categories
groups
of objects defined by
physical
attributes,
properties
,
characteristics
that can be directly
perceived
through senses
all pictures of people have
common
concrete attributes
are
identifiable
physical features present
simple
associative
learning can explain
acquisition
of concrete categories
Abstract categories
groups of concepts defined by
shared
characteristics or properties not
directly
observable
through senses
based on
subjective
interpretation
'son' - based on relationship
evidence that non-humans can learn
relational
categories =
mixed
categorising perceptual features
human
infants
tend to categorize objects based on
perceptual
features rather than
abstract
categories = more
conceptual
in nature
evidence suggests non-human animals also rely on
perceptual
features for categorization
perhaps non-human animal struggle to learn
realtional
categories?
Same/ different learning in pigeons
rewarded
for pecking at flanker
matching
sample image
group 2 - 2 sample pictures -
fast
learning
only
4
combinations for g2 = may have
remembered
correct response for each configuration
novel pictures =
no
evidence of same/ different rule
group 152-samples = 18
months
to learn -
generalised
to novel pictures
Matching to sample
Pigeons find task very
difficult
other species able to
master
more
easily
Irene Pepperberg's parrot Alex
easily respond
verbally
to questions about what was
same
/
different
Why do pigeons find same/ different judgments so difficult?
pigeons can
perceive
sameness
, but it lacks
salience
? - doesn't stand out?
Pigeons might prefer to use individual stimuli - rather than make abstract judgments
Training with lots of instances should help
Effects of varying length of training
size
of training set strongly influenced
transfer
to novel items - more training
higher
transfer correct
same effect seen of
rhesus
monkeys &
capuchins
- but
performance
generally better
Abstract rules - opposites
abstract rules - dictate
how
make
decisions
how fill in gaps of
pattern
- responses to new based on
similarity
or
opposites
rule
Humans:
rule-based
- decisions cos of
abstract
rules or
principles
Rats & pigeons:
similarity-based
- of stimuli
Humans under cognitive load:
similarity-based
Second
-order relationships in chimpanzees
young
chimpanzees,
matching
problem -
pairs
of objects attached to a
board
-
select
pair of objects whose relationship
matched
relationship of
sample
Despite
extensive
training - over 1000 trials = chimpanzees
failed
to demonstrate ability to perceive second-order relationships.
Children under
5
also struggle with
similar
tasks -suggests complexity of problem
Testing second-order relationships in chimpanzees - Further research
indicated chimpanzees could
distinguish
between
relationships
when presented with different pairs of objects after
playing
with one pair
What does it mean?
lots of evidence that non-humans animals can
form
categories based on
physical
features
can be stored using
concrete
code
moderate amount of evidence of
learning
about
relationships
- mostly from
matching
experiments
sameness
might have a concrete component
may not be entirely
abstract
or purely
conceptual
idea of
similarity
might be influenced by
concrete
elements or characteristics.