Abstract: Twelve pigeons ( Columba livia) were trained on a go/no-go schedule to discriminate between two kinds of movement patterns of dots, which to human observers appear to be “intentional” and “non-intentional” movements. In experiment 1, the intentional motion stimulus contained one dot (a “wolf”) that moved systematically towards another dot as though stalking it, and three distractors (“sheep”). The non-intentional motion stimulus consisted of four distractors but no stalker. Birds showed some improvement of discrimination as the sessions progressed, but high levels of discrimination were not reached. In experiment 2, the same birds were tested with different stimuli. The same parameters were used but the number of intentionally moving dots in the intentional motion stimulus was altered, so that three wolves stalked one sheep. Despite the enhanced difference of movement patterns, the birds did not show any further improvement in discrimination. However, birds for which the non-intentional stimulus was associated with reward showed a decline in discrimination. These results indicated that pigeons can discriminate between stimuli that do and do not contain an element that human observer see as moving intentionally. However, as no feature-positive effect was found in experiment 1, it is assumed that pigeons did not perceive or discriminate these stimuli on the basis that the intentional stimuli contained a feature that the non-intentional stimuli lacked, though the convergence seen in experiment 2 may have been an effective feature for the pigeons. Pigeons seem to be able to recognise some form of multiple simultaneously goal-directed motions, compared to random motions, as a distinctive feature, but do not seem to use simple “intentional” motion paths of two geometrical figures, embedded in random motions, as a feature whose presence or absence differentiates motion displays.

Abstract: One of the most common obstacles to object perception is the fact that objects often occlude parts of themselves and parts of other objects. Perceptual completion has been studied extensively in humans, and researchers have shown that humans do complete partly occluded objects. In an effort to understand more about the mechanisms underlying completion, recent research has extended the study of perceptual completion to other mammalian species. Monkeys and mice also seem to complete two-dimensional representations of partly occluded objects. The present study addresses the question of whether this capacity generalizes to a nonmammalian species, the pigeon (Columba livia). The results point to a limit of the generalizability of perceptual completion: pigeons do not complete partly occluded figures.

Abstract: Groups of 3-5 homing pigeons individually recognizable by different colours of their plumage were followed by helicopter on their way home. In most cases the animals flew together as a group with frequently changing leadership. Flight formations in terms of leadership were noted every minute. It was examined statistically whether the flight order varies at random or whether there are leading and led birds. In 6 out of 7 experiments with groups of 4-5 pigeons flight order was far from random, one or two pigeons proving to be leaders. In only one experiment leadership did not differ from a random distribution. No correlation could be found between the tendency to lead within a group and homing performance of the single pigeon when released individually.

Abstract: Divergent choose-absence retention functions typically found in pigeons following presence/absence-sample matching have been attributed to the development of a single-code/default coding strategy. However, such effects may result from adventitious differential responding to the samples. In Experiment 1, retention functions were divergent only when differential sample responding could serve as the basis for comparison choice. In Experiment 2, when pecking did not occur during the retention interval, a choose-absence bias was found, but when pecking occurred during the retention interval, a choose-presence bias resulted. In Experiment 3, positive transfer was found when a stimulus associated with the absence of pecking replaced the absence sample but not when a stimulus associated with pecking replaced the presence sample. Thus, presence/absence-sample matching may not encourage the development of a single-code/default coding strategy in pigeons.