Picture recognition in animals and humans



158


D. Bo6et, J. Vauclair/Beha6ioural Brain Research 109 (2000) 143-165

Table 4

Experiments showing difficulties recognizing pictures in animals

Task

Nature of pictures

Species

Results

Reference

Discrimination between pictures
of familiar or unfamiliar con-
specifics

Color slides

Laying hen

Discrimination not facilitated by
familiarity

Bradshaw and

Dawkins [7]

Behavioural observations

Black-and-white and colour
slides and motion pictures

Rhesus monkey

No spontaneous responses; no
more attention to slides of con-
specifics than to a homoge-
neously illuminated screen

Butler and

Woolpy [9]

Spontaneous discrimination be-
tween familiar and unfamiliar
conspecifics, either live or pre-
sented on photographs

Life-size colour photographs

Domestic hens

Discrimination occurs for live
hens but not for photographs of
hens

Dawkins [18]

Discrimination between pictures
of locations

Colour slides

Pigeon

Discrimination between pictures
of locations is not facilitated by
experience

Dawkins et al.
[19]

Spontaneous discrimination be-
tween familiar and unfamiliar
conspecifics, either live or pre-
sented on video

Life-size colour video sequences

Domestic hens

Discrimination of live hens but
not for those presented on video

D’Eath and

Dawkins [21]

Discrimination of right-side-up
and upside-down orientations
of scenes

Colour slides

Monkey and pi-
geon

Difficulty transferring discrimi-
nation to various classes of
slides

Jitsumori [50]

Discrimination transfer between
various hens and objects to
their pictures

Colour video images

Domestic hen

Transfer occurs only when the
two stimuli to discriminate have
different colours

Patterson-Kane et
al. [73]

Discrimination of individual pi-

Colour slides and moving video

Pigeon and

Great difficulty in identifying

Ryan and Lea

geons and chickens and be-
havioural observations

images

chicken

novel views of an individual, no
spontaneous responses

[86]

Categorization of objects and
their pictures into food and
non-food categories or into
arbitrary categories

Colour slides

Pigeon

Correct transfer from objects to
pictures occurs only for a natu-
ral category (food)

Watanabe [104]

Matching an object touched but
unseen to its photograph

Black-and-white and colour full-
size photographs

Chimpanzee

Failure to match objects with
their photographs

Winner and

Ettlinger [110]

A study by Watanabe [105] is particularly interesting
in the discussion of picture recognition because it sug-
gests that object-picture equivalence can be performed
relatively easily when there is some functional basis.
Twenty-four pigeons were divided into four experimen-
tal groups: two object-to-picture groups and two pic-
ture-to-object groups; one of the object-to-picture
groups and one of the picture-to-object groups were
trained on a natural concept (food objects were S + for
half, and non-food objects were S - , and it was the
opposite for the remaining half) while the other two
groups were trained on a pseudoconcept (an arbitrary
grouping of edible and nonedible objects as positive and
negative stimuli). When tested with the natural concept,
the subjects showed a good transfer of discrimination in
both object-to-picture and picture-to-object conditions,
but no transfer was observed with the pseudoconcept.
Such a result indicates that picture recognition can
depend on the consistency of the task.

5.2.2. Reactions to motion picture

Attempts to train domestic hens to transfer from real
stimuli to video images generally produced negative
results, although, depending on experimental condi-
tions, the birds could use some features of the patterns
(e.g. the colour) in their discrimination [73]. It was
concluded from this study that complex video images,
such as those required to recognise social stimuli, are
not equivalent to the real stimuli. In addition, some
pigeons did not transfer a learned discrimination from
live conspecifics to their photographs and had great
difficulties in discriminating between slides of individu-
als (although they easily discriminated live conspecifics).

The results of the studies reported in this section are
somewhat contradictory to the findings summarised in
Sections 3 and 4. In effect, they demonstrate that picture
recognition in animals is not obvious and is dependent
on experimental factors. In several experiments, mon-
keys and birds (such as pigeons and chicken) failed to
display an interest in photographs of conspecifics.
Moreover, different tasks involving picture recognition
have reported a failure to demonstrate such an ability;
thus chimpanzees failed to realise a cross modal match-
ing and only one monkey (out of four), which was



More intriguing information

1. The name is absent
2. American trade policy towards Sub Saharan Africa –- a meta analysis of AGOA
3. The Triangular Relationship between the Commission, NRAs and National Courts Revisited
4. Impact of Ethanol Production on U.S. and Regional Gasoline Prices and On the Profitability of U.S. Oil Refinery Industry
5. EXECUTIVE SUMMARIES
6. Regional science policy and the growth of knowledge megacentres in bioscience clusters
7. Workforce or Workfare?
8. Survey of Literature on Covered and Uncovered Interest Parities
9. NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN FARM PRICE AND INCOME POLICY PROGRAMS: PART I. SITUATION AND PROBLEM
10. An institutional analysis of sasi laut in Maluku, Indonesia