Pigeons use low rather than high spatial frequency information to make visual category discriminations

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes

Volumn 39, Issue 4, 2013, Pages 377-382

  Lea, Stephen E G ^a   De Filippo, Guido ^a,b   Dakin, Ruth ^a   Meier, Christina ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EXETER   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BOLOGNA   (Italy)

Author keywords

Hybrid stimuli; Pattern recognition; Pigeon vision; Spatial frequency analysis

Indexed keywords

ANIMAL; ARTICLE; CAT; DOG; FACE; NONPARAMETRIC TEST; PATTERN RECOGNITION; PERCEPTIVE DISCRIMINATION; PHOTOSTIMULATION; PHYSIOLOGY; PIGEONS AND DOVES;

ANIMALS; CATS; COLUMBIDAE; DISCRIMINATION (PSYCHOLOGY); DOGS; FACE; PATTERN RECOGNITION, VISUAL; PHOTIC STIMULATION; STATISTICS, NONPARAMETRIC;

EID: 84887554049     PISSN: 00977403     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/a0033104     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Blakemore, C., & Campbell, F. W. (1969). On the existence of neurones in human visual system selectively sensitive to orientation and size of retinal images. Journal of Physiology: London, 203, 237-260.
2. Campbell, F. W., & Robson, J. G. (1968). Application of Fourier analysis to visibility of gratings. Journal of Physiology, 197, 551-566.
3. Cardinal, R. N., & Aitken, M. R. F. (2010). Whisker: A client-server high-performance multimedia research control system. Behavior Research Methods, 42, 1059-1071. doi:10.3758/BRM.42.4.1059
4. Cavoto, K. K., & Cook, R. G. (2001). Cognitive precedence for local information in hierarchical stimulus processing by pigeons. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 27, 3-16. doi: 10.1037/0097-7403.27.1.3
5. Cook, R. G. (1993). Gestalt contributions to visual texture discriminations by pigeons. In T. R. Zentall (Ed.), Animal cognition (pp. 251-269). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
6. Fujita, K., & Ushitani, T. (2005). Better living by not completing: a wonderful peculiarity of pigeon vision? Behavioural Processes, 69, 59-66. doi:10.1016/j.beproc.2005.01.003
7. Galifret, Y. (1968). Les diverses aires fonctionelles de la rétine du pigeon. Zeitschrift für zellforschung und Mikroskopische Anatomie, 86, 535-545. doi:10.1007/BF00324864
8. Ghosh, N., Lea, S. E. G., & Noury, M. (2004). Transfer to intermediate forms following concept discrimination by pigeons: Chimeras and morphs. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 82, 125-141. doi:10.1901/jeab.2004.82-125
9. Goto, K., Lea, S. E. G., Wills, A. J., & Milton, F. (2011). Interpreting the effects of image manipulation on picture perception in pigeons (Columba livia) and humans (Homo sapiens). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 125, 48-60. doi:10.1037/a0020791
10. Goto, K., Wills, A. J., & Lea, S. E. G. (2004). Global-feature classification can be acquired more rapidly than local-feature classification in both humans and pigeons. Animal Cognition, 7, 109-113. doi:10.1007/s10071-003-0193-8
11. Hardy, O., & Jassik-Gerschenfeld, D. (1979). Spatial frequency and temporal frequency selectivity of single cells in the pigeon optic tectum. Vision Research, 19, 1001-1004. doi:10.1016/0042-6989(79)90225-6
12. Harmon, L. D. (1973). The recognition of faces. Scientific American, 229(5), 71-82.
13. Herrnstein, R. J., Loveland, D. H., & Cable, C. (1976). Natural concepts in pigeons. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 2, 285-302. doi:10.1037/0097-7403.2.4.285
14. Huber, L., Apfalter, W., Steurer, M., & Prossinger, H. (2005). A new learning paradigm elicits fast visual discrimination in pigeons. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 31, 237-246. doi:10.1037/0097-7403.31.2.237
15. Navon, D. (1977). Forest before trees: The precedence of global features in visual perception. Cognitive Psychology, 9, 353-383. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(77)90012-3
16. Oliva, A., Torralba, A., & Schyns, P. G. (2006). Hybrid images. ACM Transactions on Graphics, 25, 527-532. doi:10.1145/1141911.1141919
17. Pinto, L., & Baron, J. (2010). Spatiotemporal frequency tuning dynamics of neurons in the owl visual wulst. Journal of Neurophysiology, 103, 3424-3436. doi:10.1152/jn.01151.2009
18. Quinn, P. C., & Eimas, P. D. (1996). Perceptual cues that permit categorical differentiation of animal species by infants. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 63, 189-211. doi:10.1006/jecp.1996.0047
19. Schyns, P. G., & Oliva, A. (1994). From blobs to boundary edges: Evidence for time-and spatial-scale-dependent scene recognition. Psychological Science, 5, 195-200. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.1994.tb00500.x
20. Siegel, S., & Castellan, N. J. (1988). Non-parametric statistics for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.), New York: McGraw-Hill.
21. Walisch, P., Lusignan, M., Benayoun, M., Baker, T. I., Dickey, A. S., & Hatsopoulos, N. (2009). MATLAB for Neuroscientists. Burlington, MA: Academic Press.
22. Wills, A. J., Lea, S. E. G., Leaver, L. A., Osthaus, B., Ryan, C. M. E., Suret, M.,.. Millar, L. (2009). A comparative analysis of the categorization of multidimensional stimuli: I. Unidimensional classification does not necessarily imply analytic processing; evidence from pigeons (Columba livia), squirrels (Sciurus carolinensis), and humans (Homo sapiens). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 123, 391-405. doi: 10.1037/a0016216