|
|
Wasserman, E. A. (1997). The science of animal cognition: past, present, and future. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process, 23(2), 123–135.
Abstract: The field of animal cognition is strongly rooted in the philosophy of mind and in the theory of evolution. Despite these strong roots, work during the most famous and active period in the history of our science-the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s-may have diverted us from the very questions that were of greatest initial interest to the comparative analysis of learning and behavior. Subsequently, the field has been in steady decline despite its increasing breadth and sophistication. Renewal of the field of animal cognition may require a return to the original questions of animal communication and intelligence using the most advanced tools of modern psychological science. Reclaiming center stage in contemporary psychology will be difficult; planning that effort with a host of strategies should enhance the chances of success.
|
|
|
|
Brannon, E. M., Cantlon, J. F., & Terrace, H. S. (2006). The role of reference points in ordinal numerical comparisons by rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta). J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process, 32(2), 120–134.
Abstract: Two experiments examined ordinal numerical knowledge in rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta). Experiment 1 replicated the finding (E. M. Brannon & H. S. Terrace, 2000) that monkeys trained to respond in descending numerical order (4-->3-->2-->1) did not generalize the descending rule to the novel values 5-9 in contrast to monkeys trained to respond in ascending order. Experiment 2 examined whether the failure to generalize a descending rule was due to the direction of the training sequence or to the specific values used in the training sequence. Results implicated 3 factors that characterize a monkey's numerical comparison process: Weber's law, knowledge of ordinal direction, and a comparison of each value in a test pair with the reference point established by the first value of the training sequence.
|
|
|
|
Zentall, T. R., & Clement, T. S. (2002). Memory mechanisms in pigeons: evidence of base-rate neglect. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process, 28(1), 111–115.
Abstract: In delayed matching to sample, once acquired, pigeons presumably choose comparisons according to their memory for (the strength of) the sample. When memory for the sample is sufficiently weak, comparison choice should depend on the history of reinforcement associated with each of the comparison stimuli. In the present research, pigeons acquired two matching tasks in which Sample S1 was associated with one comparison from each task, C1 and C3, whereas Sample S2 was associated with Comparison C2, and Sample S3 was associated with Comparison C4. As the retention interval increased, the pigeons showed a bias to choose the comparison (C1 or C3) associated with the more frequently occurring sample (S1). Thus, pigeons were sensitive also to the (irrelevant) likelihood that each of the samples was presented. The results suggest that pigeons may allow their reference memory for the overall sample frequency to influence comparison choice, independent of the comparison stimuli present.
|
|
|
|
Beran, M. J., Smith, J. D., Redford, J. S., & Washburn, D. A. (2006). Rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta) monitor uncertainty during numerosity judgments. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process, 32(2), 111–119.
Abstract: Two rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta) judged arrays of dots on a computer screen as having more or fewer dots than a center value that was never presented in trials. After learning a center value, monkeys were given an uncertainty response that let them decline to make the numerosity judgment on that trial. Across center values (3-7), errors occurred most often for sets adjacent in numerosity to the center value. The monkeys also used the uncertainty response most frequently on these difficult trials. A 2nd experiment showed that monkeys' responses reflected numerical magnitude and not the surface-area illumination of the displays. This research shows that monkeys' uncertainty-monitoring capacity extends to the domain of numerical cognition. It also shows monkeys' use of the purest uncertainty response possible, uncontaminated by any secondary motivator.
|
|
|
|
Rumbaugh, D. M., Savage-Rumbaugh, S., & Hegel, M. T. (1987). Summation in the chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes). J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process, 13(2), 107–115.
Abstract: In this research, we asked whether 2 chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) subjects could reliably sum across pairs of quantities to select the greater total. Subjects were allowed to choose between two trays of chocolates. Each tray contained two food wells. To select the tray containing the greater number of chocolates, it was necessary to sum the contents of the food wells on each tray. In experiments where food wells contained from zero to four chocolates, the chimpanzees chose the greater value of the summed wells on more than 90% of the trials. In the final experiment, the maximum number of chocolates assigned to a food well was increased to five. Choice of the tray containing the greater sum still remained above 90%. In all experiments, subjects reliably chose the greater sum, even though on many trials a food well on the “incorrect” tray held more chocolates than either single well on the “correct” tray. It was concluded that without any known ability to count, these chimpanzees used some process of summation to combine spatially separated quantities. Speculation regarding the basis for summation includes consideration of perceptual fusion of pairs of quantities and subitization.
|
|
|
|
Nissani, M. (2006). Do Asian elephants (Elephas maximus) apply causal reasoning to tool-use tasks? J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process, 32(1), 91–96.
Abstract: Two experiments addressed contradictory claims about causal reasoning in elephants. In Experiment 1, 4 Asian elephants (Elephas maximus) were pretrained to remove a lid from the top of a bucket and retrieve a food reward. Subsequently, in the first 5 critical trials, when the lid was placed alongside the bucket and no longer obstructed access to the reward, each elephant continued to remove the lid before retrieving the reward. Experiment 2, which involved 11 additional elephants and variations of the original design, yielded similarly counterintuitive observations. Although the results are open to alternative interpretations, they appear more consistent with associative learning than with causal reasoning. Future applications of Fabrean methodologies (J. H. Fabre, 1915) to animal cognition are proposed.
|
|
|
|
Boysen, S. T., & Berntson, G. G. (1995). Responses to quantity: perceptual versus cognitive mechanisms in chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process, 21(1), 82–86.
Abstract: Two chimpanzees were trained to select among 2 different amounts of candy (1-6 items). The task was designed so that selection of either array by the active (selector) chimpanzee resulted in that array being given to the passive (observer) animal, with the remaining (nonselected) array going to the selector. Neither animal was able to select consistently the smaller array, which would reap the larger reward. Rather, both animals preferentially selected the larger array, thereby receiving the smaller number of reinforcers. When Arabic numerals were substituted for the food arrays, however, the selector animal evidenced more optimal performance, immediately selecting the smaller numeral and thus receiving the larger reward. These findings suggest that a basic predisposition to respond to the perceptual-motivational features of incentive stimuli can interfere with task performance and that this interference can be overridden when abstract symbols serve as choice stimuli.
|
|
|
|
Katz, J. S., & Wright, A. A. (2006). Same/different abstract-concept learning by pigeons. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process, 32(1), 80–86.
Abstract: Eight pigeons were trained and tested in a simultaneous same/different task. After pecking an upper picture, they pecked a lower picture to indicate same or a white rectangle to indicate different. Increases in the training set size from 8 to 1,024 items produced improved transfer from 51.3% to 84.6%. This is the first evidence that pigeons can perform a two-item same/different task as accurately with novel items as training items and both above 80% correct. Fixed-set control groups ruled out training time or transfer testing as producing the high level of abstract-concept learning. Comparisons with similar experiments with rhesus and capuchin monkeys showed that the ability to learn the same/different abstract concept was similar but that pigeons require more training exemplars.
|
|
|
|
Boysen, S. T., Bernston, G. G., Hannan, M. B., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1996). Quantity-based interference and symbolic representations in chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process, 22(1), 76–86.
Abstract: Five chimpanzees with training in counting and numerical skills selected between 2 arrays of different amounts of candy or 2 Arabic numerals. A reversed reinforcement contingency was in effect, in which the selected array was removed and the subject received the nonselected candies (or the number of candies represented by the nonselected Arabic numeral). Animals were unable to maximize reward by selecting the smaller array when candies were used as array elements. When Arabic numerals were substituted for the candy arrays, all animals showed an immediate shift to a more optimal response strategy of selecting the smaller numeral, thereby receiving the larger reward. Results suggest that a response disposition to the high-incentive candy stimuli introduced a powerful interference effect on performance, which was effectively overridden by the use of symbolic representations.
|
|
|
|
Urcuioli, P. J., & Zentall, T. R. (1986). Retrospective coding in pigeons' delayed matching-to-sample. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process, 12(1), 69–77.
Abstract: In this study we examined how coding processes in pigeons' delayed matching-to-sample were affected by the stimuli to be remembered. In Experiment 1, two groups of pigeons initially learned 0-delay matching-to-sample with identical comparison stimuli (vertical and horizontal lines) but with different sample stimuli (red and green hues or vertical and horizontal lines). Longer delays were then introduced between sample offset and comparison onset to assess whether pigeons were prospectively coding the same events (viz., the correct line comparisons) or retrospectively coding different events (viz., their respective sample stimuli). The hue-sample group matched more accurately and showed a slower rate of forgetting than the line-sample group. In Experiment 2, pigeons were trained with either hues or lines as both sample and comparison stimuli, or with hue samples and line comparisons or vice versa. Subsequent delay tests revealed that the hue-sample groups remembered more accurately and generally showed slower rates of forgetting than the line-sample groups. Comparison dimension had little or no effect on performance. Together, these data suggest that pigeons retrospectively code the samples in delayed matching-to-sample.
|
|
