Weitere Artikel dieser Ausgabe durch Wischen aufrufen
In four experiments, we evaluated Lea’s (1984) reassignment procedure for studying object representation in pigeons (Experiments 1–3) and humans (Experiment 4). In the initial phase of Experiment 1, pigeons were taught to make discriminative button responses to five views of each of four objects. Using the same set of buttons in the second phase, one view of each object was trained to a different button. In the final phase, the four views that had been withheld in the second stage were shown. In Experiment 2, pigeons were initially trained just like the birds in Experiment 1. Then, one view of each object was reassigned to a different button, now using a new set of four response buttons. In Experiment 3, the reassignment paradigm was again tested using the number of pecks to bind together different views of the same object. Across all three experiments, pigeons showed statistically significant generalization of the new response to the non-reassigned views, but such responding was well below that to the reassigned view. In Experiment 4, human participants were studied using the same stimuli and task as the pigeons in Experiment 1. People did strongly generalize the new response to the non-reassigned views. These results indicate that humans, but not pigeons, can employ a unified object representation that they can flexibly map to different responses under the reassignment procedure.
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten
Sie möchten Zugang zu diesem Inhalt erhalten? Dann informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:
Astley, S. L., Peissig, J. J., & Wasserman, E. A. (2002). Superordinate categorization via learned stimulus equivalence: Quantity of reinforcement, hedonic value, and the nature of the mediator. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 27, 252–268.
Astley, S. L., & Wasserman, E. A. (1992). Categorical discrimination and generalization in pigeons: All negative stimuli are not created equal. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 27, 193–207.
Astley, S. L., & Wasserman, E. A. (1998). Novelty and functional equivalence in superordinate categories in pigeons. Animal Learning and Behavior, 26, 125–138. CrossRef
Astley, S. L., & Wasserman, E. A. (1999). Superordinate category formation in pigeons: Association with a common delay or probability of food reinforcement makes perceptually dissimilar stimuli functionally equivalent. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 25, 415–432. PubMed
Bhatt, R. S., & Wasserman, E. A. (1987). Choice behavior of pigeons on progressive and multiple schedules: A test of optimal foraging theory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 13, 40–51.
Bhatt, R. S., Wasserman, E. A., Reynolds, W. F., Jr., & Knauss, K. S. (1988). Conceptual behavior in pigeons: Categorization of both familiar and novel examples from four classes of natural and artificial stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 14, 219–234.
Biederman, I. (2001). Recognizing depth-rotated objects: A review of recent research and theory. Spatial Vision, 13, 241–253. CrossRef
Bornstein, R. A. (1986). Contribution of various neuropsychological measure to detection of frontal lobe impairment. International Journal of Clinical Neuropsychology, 8, 18–22.
Bülthoff, H. H., & Edelman, S. (1992). Psychophysical support for a two-dimensional view interpolation theory of object recognition. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA, 89, 60–64. CrossRef
Delius, J. D., Ameling, M., Lea, S. E. G., & Staddon, J. E. R. (1995). Reinforcement concordance induces and maintains stimulus associations in pigeons. Psychological Record, 45, 283–297.
Gibson, B. M., Wasserman, E. A., Frei, L., & Miller, K. (2004). Recent advances in operant conditioning technology: A versatile and affordable computerized touchscreen system. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 355–362. CrossRef
Lea, S. E. G. (1984). In what sense do pigeons learn concepts? In H. L. Roitblat, T. G. Bever, & H. S. Terrace (Eds.), Animal cognition (pp. 263–276). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Mallot, R. N., & Siddal, J. N. (1972). Acquisition of the people concept in pigeons. Psychological Reports, 31, 3–13. CrossRef
Milner, B. (1963). Effects of different brain lesions on card sorting: The role of the frontal lobes. Archives of Neurology, 9, 100–110. CrossRef
Murphy, G. L. (2010). What are categories and concepts? In D. Mareschel, P. C. Quinn, & S. E. G. Lea (Eds.), The making of human concepts (pp. 11–28). New York: Oxford University Press. CrossRef
Peissig, J. J., & Tarr, M. J. (2007). Object recognition: Do we know more today than we did twenty years ago? In S. T. Fiske, A. E. Kazdin, & D. L. Schacter (Eds.), Annual review of psychology (Vol. 58, pp. 75–96). Palo Alto: Annual Reviews Press.
Peissig, J. J., Young, M. E., Wasserman, E. A., & Biederman, I. (2000a). Seeing things from a different angle: The pigeon’s discrimination of single geons rotated in depth. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 26, 115–132. PubMed
Peissig, J. J., Young, M. E., Wasserman, E. A., & Biederman, I. (2000b). The pigeon’s perception of depth-rotated shapes. In J. Fagot (Ed.), Picture perception in animals (pp. 37–70). East Sussex: Psychology Press, Ltd.
Soto, F. A., & Wasserman, E. A. (2012). Visual object categorization in birds and primates: Integrating behavioral, neurobiological, and computational evidence within a “general process” framework. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 12, 220–240. CrossRef
Stuss, D. T., Levine, B., Alexander, M. P., Hong, J., Palumbo, C., Hamer, L. … Izukawa, D. (2000). Wisconsin Card Sorting Test performance in patients with focal frontal and posterior brain damage: Effects of lesion location and test structure on separable cognitive processes. Neuropsychologia, 38, 388–402.
Vaughan, W. (1988). Formation of equivalence sets in pigeons. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 14, 36–42.
Von Fersen, L., & Lea, S. E. G. (1990). Category discrimination by pigeons using 5 polymorphous features. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 54, 69–84. CrossRef
Wasserman, E. A., & Bhatt, R. S. (1992). Conceptualization of natural and artificial stimuli by pigeons. In W. K. Honig & J. G. Fetterman (Eds.), Cognitive aspects of stimulus control (pp. 203–223). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Wasserman, E. A., & Biederman, I. (2012). Recognition by components: A bird’s eye view. In O. F. Lazareva, T. Shimizu, & E. A. Wasserman (Eds.), How animals see the world. New York: Oxford University Press.
Wasserman, E. A., DeVolder, C. L., & Coppage, D. J. (1992). Non-similarity-based conceptualization in pigeons via secondary or mediated generalization. Psychological Science, 3, 374–379. CrossRef
Zentall, T. R. (2012). Working memory in animals. In T. R. Zentall & E. A. Wasserman (Eds.), Oxford handbook of comparative cognition (pp. 215–238). New York: Oxford University Press.
- Using the reassignment procedure to test object representation in pigeons and people
Jessie J. Peissig
Michael E. Young
Edward A. Wasserman
- Springer US
Neuer Inhalt/© Stellmach, Neuer Inhalt/© Maturus, Pluta Logo/© Pluta