Mechanisms of object recognition: What we have learned from pigeons

Frontiers in Neural Circuits

Volumn 8, Issue OCT, 2014, Pages

  Soto, Fabian A ^a   Wasserman, Edward A ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b University of Iowa   (United States)

Author keywords

Categorization; Invariance; Learning; Object recognition; Pigeon

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BASAL GANGLION; BRAIN FUNCTION; ERROR; HUMAN; LEARNING; NEUROSCIENCE; NONHUMAN; OBJECT RECOGNITION; PATTERN RECOGNITION; PIGEON; POSITIVE FEEDBACK; PRIMATE; SPECIES DIFFERENCE; STIMULUS RESPONSE; VERTEBRATE; ANIMAL; PHOTOSTIMULATION; PHYSIOLOGY; PIGEONS AND DOVES; RECOGNITION; REINFORCEMENT;

ANIMALS; COLUMBIDAE; HUMANS; LEARNING; PATTERN RECOGNITION, VISUAL; PHOTIC STIMULATION; RECOGNITION (PSYCHOLOGY); REINFORCEMENT (PSYCHOLOGY);

EID: 84908003843     PISSN: 16625110     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3389/fncir.2014.00122     Document Type: Article

References (212)

1. Antzoulatos, E. G., and Miller, E. K. (2011). Differences between neural sctivity in prefrontal cortex and striatum during learning of novel abstract categories. Neuron 71, 243–249. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2011.05.040
2. Ashby, F. G., Alfonso-Reese, L. A., Turken, A. U., and Waldron, E. M. (1998). A neuropsychological theory of multiple systems in category learning. Psychol. Rev. 105, 442–481. doi:10.1037//0033-295x.105.3.442
3. Ashby, F. G., and Ell, S. W. (2001). The neurobiology of human category learning. Trends Cogn. Sci. 5, 204–210. doi:10.1016/s1364-6613(00)01624-7
4. Ashby, F. G., and Ennis, J. M. (2006). “The role of the basal ganglia in category learning,” in The Psychology of Learning and Motivation: Advances in Research and Theory, ed B. H. Ross (New York, NY: Elsevier), 1–36.
5. Ashby, F. G., and Soto, F. A. (in press). “Multidimensional signal detection theory,” in Oxford Handbook of Computational and Mathematical Psychology, eds J. Busemeyer, J. T. Townsend, Z. J. Wang and A. Eidels (Oxford University Press).
6. Ashby, F. G., and Valentin, V. V. (2005). “Multiple systems of perceptual category learning: theory and cognitive tests,” in Categorization in Cognitive Science, eds H. Cohen and C. Lefebvre (New York: Elsevier), 548–572.
7. Astley, S. L., and Wasserman, E. A. (1992). Categorical discrimination and generalization in pigeons: all negative stimuli are not created equal. J. Exp. Psychol. Anim. Behav. Process. 18, 193–207. doi:10.1037//0097-7403.18.2.193
8. Astley, S. L., and Wasserman, E. A. (1998). Novelty and functional equivalence in superordinate categorization by pigeons. Anim. Learn. Behav. 26, 125–138. doi:10.3758/bf03199206
9. Astley, S. L., and 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. J. Exp. Psychol. Anim. Behav. Process. 25, 415–432. doi:10.1037//0097-7403.25.4.415
10. Aust, U., and Huber, L. (2001). The role of item- and category-specific information in the discrimination of people versus nonpeople images by pigeons. Anim. Learn. Behav. 29, 107–119. doi:10.3758/bf03192820
11. Aust, U., and Huber, L. (2002). Target-defining features in a “people-present/people-absent” discrimination task by pigeons. Anim. Learn. Behav. 30, 165–176. doi:10.3758/bf03192918
12. Aydin, A., and Pearce, J. M. (1997). Some determinants of response summation. Anim. Learn. Behav. 25, 108–121. doi:10.3758/bf03199029
13. Berg, M. E., and Grace, R. C. (2011). Categorization of multidimensional stimuli by pigeons. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 95, 305–326. doi:10.1901/jeab.2010.94-305
14. Berg, M. E., Ward, M. D., Dai, Z., Arantes, J., and Grace, R. C. (2014). Comparing performance of humans and pigeons in rule-based visual categorization tasks. Learn. Motiv. 45, 44–58. doi:10.1016/j.lmot.2013.11.001
15. Bhatt, R. S., Wasserman, E. A., Reynolds, W. F., and Knauss, K. S. (1988). Conceptual behavior in pigeons: categorization of both familiar and novel examples from 4 classes of natural and artificial stimuli. J. Exp. Psychol. Anim. Behav. Process. 14, 219–234. doi:10.1037//0097-7403.14.3.219
16. Biederman, I. (1987). Recognition-by-components: a theory of human image understanding. Psychol. Rev. 94, 115–147. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.94.2.115
17. Biederman, I., and Bar, M. (1999). One-shot viewpoint invariance in matching novel objects. Vision Res. 39, 2885–2899. doi:10.1016/s0042-6989(98)00309-5
18. Biederman, I., and Cooper, E. E. (1992). Size in variance in visual object priming. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 18, 121–133. doi:10.1037//0096-1523.18.1.121
19. Biederman, I., and Gerhardstein, P. C. (1993). Recognizing depth-rotated objects: evidence and conditions for three-dimensional viewpoint invariance. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 19, 1162–1182. doi:10.1037//0096-1523.19.6.1162
20. Biederman, I., and Ju, G. (1988). Surface versus edge-based determinants of visual recognition. Cognit. Psychol. 20, 38–64. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(88)90024-2
21. Bitterman, M. E. (2000). “Cognitive evolution: a psychological perspective,” in The Evolution of Cognition, eds C. M. Heyes and L. Huber (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press), 61–79.
22. Blair, M., and Homa, D. (2003). As easy to memorize as they are to classify: the 5-4 categories and the category advantage. Mem. Cognit. 31, 1293–1301. doi:10.3758/bf03195812
23. Blais, C., Arguin, M., and Marleau, I. (2009). Orientation invariance in visual shape perception. J. Vis. 9, 1–23. doi:10.1167/9.2.14
24. Blough, D. S. (1988). Quantitative relations between visual search speed and target-distractor similarity. Percept. Psychophys. 43, 57–71. doi:10.3758/bf03208974
25. Brooks, D.I., Ng, K.H., Buss, E. W., Marshall, A.T., Freeman, J.H., and Wasserman, E. A. (2013). Categorization of photographic images by rats using shape-based image dimensions. J. Exp. Psychol. Anim. Behav. Process. 39, 85–92. doi:10.1037/a0030404
26. Cabe, P. A. (1976). Transfer of discrimination from solid objects to pictures by pigeons: a test of theoretical models of pictorial perception. Percept. Psychophys. 19, 545–550. doi:10.3758/bf03211224
27. Casale, M. B., Roeder, J. L., and Ashby, F. G. (2012). Analogical transfer in perceptual categorization. Mem. Cognit. 40, 434–449. doi:10.3758/s13421-011-0154-4
28. Castro, L., and Wasserman, E. A. (2014). Pigeons’ tracking of relevant attributes in categorization learning. J. Exp. Psychol. Anim. Learn. Cogn. 40, 195–211. doi:10.1037/xan0000022
29. Centonze, D., Picconi, B., Gubellini, P., Bernardi, G., and Calabresi, P. (2001). Dopaminergic control of synaptic plasticity in the dorsal striatum. Eur. J. Neurosci. 13, 1071–1077. doi:10.1046/j.0953-816x.2001.01485.x
30. Cerella, J. (1977). Absence of perspective processing in the pigeon. Pattern Recognit. 9, 65–68. doi:10.1016/0031-3203(77)90016-4
31. Cerella, J. (1986). Pigeons and perceptrons. Pattern Recognit. 19, 431–438. doi:10.1016/0031-3203(86)90041-5
32. Collins, D. J., and Shanks, D. R. (2006). Summation in causal learning: elemental processing or configural generalization? Q. J. Exp. Psychol. (Hove) 59, 1524–1534. doi:10.1080/17470210600639389
33. Colombo, M., and Scarf, D. (2012). Neurophysiological studies of learning and memory in pigeons. Comp. Cogn. Behav. Rev. 7, 23–43. doi:10.3819/ccbr.2012.70002
34. Cook, R. G. (2001). Avian Visual Cognition. [On-line]. Available online at: www.pigeon.psy.tufts.edu/avc/.
35. Cook, R. G., and Smith, J. D. (2006). Stages of abstraction and exemplar memorization in pigeon category learning. Psychol. Sci. 17, 1059–1067. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01833.x
36. Cook, R. G., Wright, A. A., and Kendrick, D. F. (1990). “Visual categorization by pigeons,” in Behavioral Approaches to Pattern Recognition and Concept Formation Quantitative Analyses of Behavior, eds M. L. Commons, R. J. Herrnstein, S. Kosslyn and D. Mumford (Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum), 187–214.
37. Cox, D. D., Meier, P., Oertelt, N., and DiCarlo, J. J. (2005). ‘Breaking’ position-invariant object recognition. Nat. Neurosci. 8, 1145–1147. doi:10.1038/nn1519
38. Demeyer, M., Zaenen, P., and Wagemans, J. (2007). Low-level correlations between object properties and viewpoint can cause viewpoint-dependent object recognition. Spat. Vis. 20, 79–106. doi:10.1163/156856807779369760
39. de Waal, F. B. M., and Ferrari, P. F. (2010). Towards a bottom-up perspective on animal and human cognition. Trends Cogn. Sci. 14, 201–207. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2010.03.003
40. Diekamp, B., Kalt, T., and Güntürkün, O. (2002). Working memory neurons in pigeons. J. Neurosci. 22, RC210, 1–5.
41. Durstewitz, D., Kröner, S., and Güntürkün, O. (1999). The dopaminergic inner-vation of the avian telencephalon. Prog. Neurobiol. 59, 161–195. doi:10.1016/s0301-0082(98)00100-2
42. Edelman, S., and Bülthoff, H. (1992). Orientation dependence in the recognition of familiar and novel views of three-dimensional objects. Vision Res. 32, 2385–2400. doi:10.1016/0042-6989(92)90102-o
43. Edwards, C. A., and Honig, W. K. (1987). Memorization and feature-selection in the acquisition of natural concepts in pigeons. Learn. Motiv. 18, 235–260. doi:10.1016/0023-9690(87)90013-0
44. Ellamil, M., Susskind, J. M., and Anderson, A. K. (2008). Examinations of identity invariance in facial expression adaptation. Cogn. Affect. Behav. Neurosci. 8, 273–281. doi:10.3758/cabn.8.3.273
45. Emmerton, J. (2001). “Birds’ judgments of number and quantity,” in Avian Visual Cognition, ed R. G. Cook (Medford, MA: Tufts University E-book). Available online at: www.pigeon.psy.tufts.edu/avc/emmerton/.
46. Engelage, J., and Bischof, H. J. (1996). Single-cell responses in the ectostriatum of the zebra finch. J. Comp. Physiol. A Neuroethol. Sens. Neural Behav. Physiol. 179, 785–795. doi:10.1007/bf00207357
47. Farah, M. J., Tanaka, J. W., and Drain, H. M. (1995). What causes the face inversion effect? J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 21, 628–634. doi:10.1037//0096-1523.21.3.628
48. Fox, C. J., and Barton, J. J. S. (2007). What is adapted in face adaptation? The neural representations of expression in the human visual system. Brain Res. 1127, 80–89. doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2006.09.104
49. Fox, C. J., Oruç, I., and Barton, J. J. S. (2008). It doesn’t matter how you feel. The facial identity aftereffect is invariant to changes in facial expression. J. Vis. 8, 1–13. doi:10.1167/8.3.11
50. Fredes, F., Tapia, S., Letelier, J. C., Marín, G., and Mpodozis, J. (2010). Topographic arrangement of the rotundo-entopallial projection in the pigeon (Columba livia). J. Comp. Neurol. 518, 4342–4361. doi:10.1002/cne.22460
51. Freedman, D. J., Riesenhuber, M., Poggio, T., and Miller, E. K. (2001). Categorical representation of visual stimuli in the primate prefrontal cortex. Science 291, 312–316. doi:10.1126/science.291.5502.312
52. Freedman, D. J., Riesenhuber, M., Poggio, T., and Miller, E. K. (2002). Visual categorization and the primate prefrontal cortex: neurophysiology and behavior. J. Neurophysiol. 88, 929–941. doi:10.1152/jn.00040.2002
53. Freedman, D. J., Riesenhuber, M., Poggio, T., and Miller, E. K. (2003). A comparison of primate prefrontal and inferior temporal cortices during visual categorization. J. Neurosci. 23, 5235–5246.
54. Friedman, A., Spetch, M. L., and Ferrey, A. (2005). Recognition by humans and pigeons of novel views of 3-D objects and their photographs. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 134, 149–162. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.134.2.149
55. Fukushima, K. (1980). Neocognitron: a self-organizing neural network model for a mechanism of pattern recognition unaffected by shift in position. Biol. Cybern. 36, 193–202. doi:10.1007/bf00344251
56. Geisler, W. S., Perry, J. S., Super, B. J., and Gallogly, D. P. (2001). Edge co-occurrence in natural images predicts contour grouping performance. Vision Res. 41, 711–724. doi:10.1016/s0042-6989(00)00277-7
57. Gibson, B. M., Lazareva, O. F., Gosselin, F., Schyns, P. G., and Wasserman, E. A. (2007). Nonaccidental properties underlie shape recognition in mammalian and nonmammalian vision. Curr. Biol. 17, 336–340. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2006.12.025
58. Gibson, B. M., Wasserman, E. A., Gosselin, F., and Schyns, P. G. (2005). Applying bubbles to localize features that control pigeons’ visual discrimination behavior. J. Exp. Psychol. Anim. Behav. Process. 31, 376–382. doi:10.1037/0097-7403.31.3.376
59. Gluck, M. A., and Bower, G. H. (1988). From conditioning to category learning: an adaptive network model. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 117, 227–247. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.117.3.227
60. Goris, R. L., and Op de Beeck, H. P. (2009). Neural representations that support invariant object recognition. Front. Comput. Neurosci. 3:3. doi:10.3389/neuro.10.003.2009
61. Goris, R. L., and Op de Beeck, H. P. (2010). Invariance in visual object recognition requires training: a computational argument. Front. Neurosci. 4:71. doi:10 3389/neuro.01.012.2010
62. Gosselin, F., and Schyns, P. G. (2001). Bubbles: a technique to reveal the use of information in recognition tasks. Vision Res. 41, 2261–2271. doi:10.1016/s0042-6989(01)00097-9
63. Güntürkün, O. (2005). The avian “prefrontal cortex” and cognition. Curr. Opin. Neurobiol. 15, 686–693. doi:10.1016/j.conb.2005.10.003
64. Hall, G., and Channell, S. (1985). A comparison of intradimensional and extradi-mensional shift learning in pigeons. Behav. Processes 10, 285–295. doi:10.1016/0376-6357(85)90075-0
65. Hayward, W. G. (1998). Effects of outline shape in object recognition. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 24, 427–440. doi:10.1037//0096-1523.24.2.427
66. Hayward, W. G., and Tarr, M. J. (1997). Testing conditions for viewpoint invariance in object recognition. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 23, 1511–1521. doi:10.1037//0096-1523.23.5.1511
67. Herrnstein, R. J., and De Villiers, P. A. (1980). “Fish as a natural category for people and pigeons,” in The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, ed G. H. Bower (New York: Academic Press), 59–95.
68. Herrnstein, R.J., and Loveland, D. H. (1964). Complex visual conceptinthe pigeon. Science 146, 549–551. doi:10.1126/science.146.3643.549
69. Herrnstein, R. J., Loveland, D. H., and Cable, C. (1976). Natural concepts in pigeons. J. Exp. Psychol. Anim. Behav. Process. 2, 285–302. doi:10.1037//0097-7403.2.4.285
70. Homa, D., Cross, J., Cornell, D., Goldman, D., and Shwartz, S. (1973). Prototype abstraction and classification of new instances as a function of number of instances defining the prototype. J. Exp. Psychol. 101, 116–122. doi:10.1037/h0035772
71. Hubel, D. H., and Wiesel, T. N. (1962). Receptive fields, binocular interaction and functional architecture in the cat’s visual cortex. J. Physiol. 160, 106–154.
72. Hubel, D. H., and Wiesel, T. N. (1968). Receptive fields and functional architecture of monkey striate cortex. J. Physiol. 195, 215–243.
73. Huber, L. (2001). “Visual categorization in pigeons,” in Avian Visual Cognition, ed R. G. Cook (Medford, MA: Tufts University E-book). Available online at: www.pigeon.psy.tufts.edu/avc/huber/.
74. Huber, L., and Lenz, R. (1993). A test of the linear feature model of polymorphous concept discrimination with pigeons. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 46B, 1–18.
75. Huber, L., Troje, N. F., Loidolt, M., Aust, U., and Grass, D. (2000). Natural categorization through multiple feature learning in pigeons. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. B 53B, 341–357. doi:10.1080/027249900750001347
76. Hung, C. P., Kreiman, G., Poggio, T., and DiCarlo, J. J. (2005). Fast readout of object identity from macaque inferior temporal cortex. Science 310, 863–866. doi:10.1126/science.1117593
77. Husband, S., and Shimizu, T. (2001). “Evolution of the avian visual system,” in Avian Visual Cognition, ed R. G. Cook (Medford, MA: Tufts University E-book). Available online at: http://www.pigeon.psy.tufts.edu/avc/husband.
78. Jarvis, E. D., Güntürkün, O., Bruce, L., Csillag, A., Karten, H., Kuenzel, W., et al. (2005). Opinion: avian brains and a new understanding of vertebrate brain evolution. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 6, 151–159. doi:10.1038/nrn1606
79. Jiang, X., Bradley, E., Rini, R. A., Zeffiro, T., VanMeter, J., and Riesenhuber, M. (2007). Categorization training results in shape- and category-selective human neural plasticity. Neuron 53, 891–903. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2007.02.015
80. Jitsumori, M., and Yoshihara, M. (1997). Categorical discrimination of human facial expressions by pigeons: a test of the linear feature model. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 50, 253–268.
81. Jolicoeur, P. (1987). A size-congruency effect in memory for visual shape. Mem. Cognit. 15, 531–543. doi:10.3758/bf03198388
82. Kaelbling, L. P., Littman, M. L., and Moore, A. W. (1996). Reinforcement learning: a survey. J. Artif. Intell. Res. 4, 237–285.
83. Kamin, L. J. (1969). “Selective association and conditioning,” in Fundamental Issues in Associative Learning, eds N. J. Mackintosh and W. K. Honig (Halifax: Dalhousie University Press), 42–64.
84. Kayaert, G., Biederman, I., and Vogels, R. (2005). Representation of regular and irregular shapes in Macaque Inferotemporal cortex. Cereb. Cortex 15, 1308–1321. doi:10.1093/cercor/bhi014
85. Kendrick, D. F., Wright, A. A., and Cook, R. G. (1990). On the role of memory in concept learning by pigeons. Psychol. Rec. 40, 359–371.
86. Kirkpatrick, K. (2001). “Object recognition,” in Avian Visual Cognition, ed R. G. Cook (Medford, MA: Tufts University E-book). Available online at: www.pigeon.psy.tufts.edu/avc/kirkpatrick/.
87. Kirkpatrick, K., Bilton, T., Hansen, B. C., and Loschky, L. C. (2014). Scene gist categorization by pigeons. J. Exp. Psychol. Anim. Behav. Process. Available online at: http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/2013-44235-001/ [Accessed April 15, 2014].
88. Kirkpatrick-Steger, K., and Wasserman, E. A. (1996). The what and the where of the pigeon’s processing of complex visual stimuli. J. Exp. Psychol. Anim. Behav. Process. 22, 60–67. doi:10.1037//0097-7403.22.1.60
89. Kirkpatrick-Steger, K., Wasserman, E. A., and Biederman, I. (1998). Effects of geon deletion, scrambling and movement on picture recognition in pigeons. J. Exp. Psychol. Anim. Behav. Process. 24, 34–46. doi:10.1037//0097-7403.24.1.34
90. Kirsch, J. A., Vlachos, I., Hausmann, M., Rose, J., Yim, M. Y., Aertsen, A., et al. (2009). Neuronal encoding of meaning: establishing category-selective response patterns in the avian ‘prefrontal cortex’. Behav. Brain Res. 198, 214–223. doi:10.1016/j.bbr.2008.11.010
91. Kravitz, D. J., Vinson, L. D., and Baker, C. I. (2008). How position dependent is visual object recognition? Trends Cogn. Sci. 12, 114–122. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2007.12.006
92. Kröner, S., and Güntürkün, O. (1999). Afferent and efferent connections of the caudolateral neostriatum in the pigeon (Columba livia): a retro-and anterograde pathway tracing study. J. Comp. Neurol. 407, 228–260. doi:10.1002/(sici)1096-9861(19990503)407:2<228::aid-cne6>3.0.co;2-2
93. Larsen, A., and Bundesen, C. (1978). Size scaling in visual pattern recognition. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 4, 1–20. doi:10.1037//0096-1523.4.1.1
94. Laverghetta, A. V., and Shimizu, T. (2003). Organization of the ectostriatum based on afferent connections in the zebra finch (Taeniopygia guttata). Brain Res. 963, 101–112. doi:10.1016/s0006-8993(02)03949-5
95. Lazareva, O. F., Freiburger, K. L., and Wasserman, E. A. (2004). Pigeons concurrently categorize photographs at both basic and superordinate levels. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 11, 1111–1117. doi:10.3758/bf03196745
96. Lazareva, O. F., Freiburger, K. L., and Wasserman, E. A. (2006). Effects of stimulus manipulations on visual categorization in pigeons. Behav. Processes 72, 224–233. doi:10.1016/j.beproc.2006.03.004
97. Lazareva, O. F., Shimizu, T., and Wasserman, E. A. (2012). How Animals See the World. New York: Oxford University Press.
98. Lazareva, O. F., Soto, F. A., and Wasserman, E. A. (2010). Effect of between-category similarity on basic-level superiority in pigeons. Behav. Processes 85, 236–345. doi:10.1016/j.beproc.2010.06.014
99. Lazareva, O. F., and Wasserman, E. A. (2008). “Categories and concepts in animals,” in Learning and Memory: A Comprehensive Reference, ed J. H. Byrne (Oxford: Academic Press), 197–226.
100. Lazareva, O. F., and Wasserman, E. A. (2009). Effects of stimulus duration and choice delay on visual categorization in pigeons. Learn. Motiv. 40, 132–146. doi:10.1016/j.lmot.2008.10.003
101. Lazareva, O. F., Wasserman, E. A., and Biederman, I. (2008). Pigeons and humans are more sensitive to nonaccidental than to metric changes in visual objects. Behav. Processes 77, 199–209. doi:10.1016/j.beproc.2007.11.009
102. Lea, S. E., De Filippo, G., Dakin, R., and Meier, C. (2013). Pigeons use low rather than high spatial frequency information to make visual category discriminations. J. Exp. Psychol. Anim. Behav. Process. 39, 377–382. doi:10.1037/a0033104
103. Lea, S.E.G., Wills, A.J., and Ryan, C. M. E. (2006). Why are artificial polymorphous concepts so hard for birds to learn? Q. J. Exp. Psychol. (Hove) 59, 251–267. doi:10.1080/02724990544000031
104. Leutgeb, S., Husband, S., Riters, L. V., Shimizu, T., and Bingman, V. P. (1996). Telencephalic afferents to the caudolateral neostriatum of the pigeon. Brain Res. 730, 173–181. doi:10.1016/s0006-8993(96)00444-1
105. Li, N., and DiCarlo, J. J. (2008). Unsupervised natural experience rapidly alters invariant object representation in visual cortex. Science 321, 1502–1507. doi:10.1126/science.1160028
106. Li, N., and DiCarlo, J. J. (2010). Unsupervised natural visual experience rapidly reshapes size-invariant object representation in inferior temporal cortex. Neuron 67, 1062–1075. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2010.08.029
107. Li, N., and DiCarlo, J. J. (2012). Neuronal learning of invariant object representation in the ventral visual stream is not dependent on reward. J. Neurosci. 32, 6611–6620. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3786-11.2012
108. Li, D.-P., Xiao, Q., and Wang, S.-R. (2007). Feedforward construction of the receptive field and orientation selectivity of visual neurons in the pigeon. Cereb. Cortex 17, 885–893. doi:10.1093/cercor/bhk043]
109. Lu, Z. L., Hua, T., Huang, C. B., Zhou, Y., and Dosher, B. A. (2011). Visual perceptual learning. Neurobiol. Learn. Mem. 95, 145–151. doi:10.1016/j.nlm.2010.09.010
110. Lumsden, E. A. (1977). Generalization of an operant response to photographs and drawings/silhouettes of a three-dimensional object at various orientations. Bull. Psychon. Soc. 10, 405–407. doi:10.3758/bf03329374
111. Mackintosh, N. J., and Little, L. (1969). Intradimensional and extradimensional shift learning by pigeons. Psychon. Sci. 14, 5–6. doi:10.3758/bf03336395
112. Macphail, E. M., and Bolhuis, J. J. (2001). The evolution of intelligence: adaptive specializations versus general process. Biol. Rev. Camb. Philos. Soc. 76, 341–364. doi:10.1017/s146479310100570x
113. Mash, C., Arterberry, M. E., and Bornstein, M. H. (2007). Mechanisms of visual object recognition in infancy: five-month-olds generalize beyond the interpolation of familiar views. Infancy 12, 31–43. doi:10.1111/j.1532-7078.2007.tb00232.x
114. Matsukawa, A., Inoue, S., and Jitsumori, M. (2004). Pigeon’s recognition of cartoons: effects of fragmentation, scrambling and deletion of elements. Behav. Processes 65, 25–34. doi:10.1016/s0376-6357(03)00147-5
115. Maurer, D., Grand, R. L., and Mondloch, C. J. (2002). The many faces of con-figural processing. Trends Cogn. Sci. 6, 255–260. doi:10.1016/s1364-6613(02)01903-4
116. Minamimoto, T., Saunders, R. C., and Richmond, B. J. (2010). Monkeys quickly learn and generalize visual categories without lateral prefrontal cortex. Neuron 66, 501–507. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2010.04.010
117. Minda, J. P., and Smith, J. D. (2001). Prototypes in category learning: the effects of category size, category structure and stimulus complexity. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 27, 775–799. doi:10.1037//0278-7393.27.3.775
118. Mishkin, M., Ungerleider, L. G., and Macko, K. A. (1983). Object vision and spatial vision: two cortical pathways. Trends Neurosci. 6, 414–417. doi:10.1016/0166-2236(83)90190-x
119. Montague, P. R., Dayan, P., and Sejnowski, T. J. (1996). A framework for mesen-cephalic dopamine systems based on predictive Hebbian learning. J. Neurosci. 16, 1936–1947.
120. Nguyen, A. P., Spetch, M. L., Crowder, N. A., Winship, I. R., Hurd, P. L., and Wylie, D. R. W. (2004). A dissociation of motion and spatial-pattern vision in the avian telencephalon: implications for the evolution of “visual streams”. J. Neurosci. 24, 4962–4970. doi:10.1523/jneurosci.0146-04.2004
121. Nicola, S. M., Surmeier, D. J., and Malenka, R. C. (2000). Dopaminergic modulation of neuronal excitability in the striatum and nucleus accumbens. Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 23, 185–215. doi:10.1146/annurev.neuro.23.1.185
122. Nosofsky, R. M., Kruschke, J. K., and McKinley, S. C. (1992). Combining exemplar-based category representations and connectionist learning rules. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 18, 211–233. doi:10.1037//0278-7393.18.2.211
123. Pascalis, O., and Kelly, D. J. (2009). The origins of face processing in humans: phylogeny and ontogeny. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 4, 200–209. doi:10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01119.x
124. Peissig, J. J., Kirkpatrick, K., Young, M. E., Wasserman, E. A., and Biederman, I. (2006). Effects of varying stimulus size on object recognition in pigeons. J. Exp. Psychol. Anim. Behav. Process. 32, 419–430. doi:10.1037/0097-7403.32.4.419
125. Peissig, J. J., Wasserman, E. A., Young, M. E., and Biederman, I. (2002). Learning an object from multiple views enhances its recognition in an orthogonal rotational axis in pigeons. Vision Res. 42, 2051–2062. doi:10.1016/s0042-6989(02) 00128-1
126. Peissig, J. J., Young, M. E., Wasserman, E. A., and Biederman, I. (1999). The pigeon’s perception of depth-rotated shapes. Cah. Psychol. Cogn. Curr. Psychol. Cogn. 18, 657–690.
127. Peissig, J. J., Young, M. E., Wasserman, E. A., and Biederman, I. (2000). Seeing things from a different angle: the Pigeon’s recognition of single geons rotated in depth. J. Exp. Psychol. Anim. Behav. Process. 26, 115–132. doi:10.1037//0097-7403.26.2.115
128. Perrett, D. I., and Oram, M. W. (1993). Neurophysiology of shape processing. Image Vis. Comput. 11, 317–333. doi:10.1016/0262-8856(93)90011-5
129. Phelps, M. T., and Roberts, W. A. (1994). Memory for pictures of upright and inverted primate faces in humans (Homo sapiens), Squirrel Monkeys (Saimiri sciureus) and pigeons (Columba livia). J. Comp. Psychol. 108, 114–125. doi:10.1037//0735-7036.108.2.114
130. Pisacreta, R., Potter, C., and Lefave, P. (1984). Matching of varying-size form stimuli in the pigeon. Bull. Psychon. Soc. 22, 591–593. doi:10.3758/bf03333917
131. Preuss, T. M. (2011). The human brain: rewired and running hot. Ann. N Y Acad. Sci. 1225, E182–E191. doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.2011.06001.x
132. Reiner, A. (2002). Functional circuitry of the avian basal ganglia: implications for basal ganglia organization in stem amniotes. Brain Res. Bull. 57, 513–528. doi:10.1016/s0361-9230(01)00667-0
133. Reiner, A., Perkel, D. J., Bruce, L. L., Butler, A. B., Csillag, A., Kuenzel, W., et al. (2004). Revised nomenclature for avian telencephalon and some related brainstem nuclei. J. Comp. Neurol. 473, 377–414. doi:10.1002/cne.20118
134. Reiner, A., Yamamoto, K., and Karten, H. J. (2005). Organization and evolution of the avian forebrain. Anat. Rec. A Discov. Mol. Cell. Evol. Biol. 287A, 1080–1102. doi:10.1002/ar.a.20253
135. Rescorla, R. A., and Coldwell, S. E. (1995). Summation in autoshaping. Anim. Learn. Behav. 23, 314–326. doi:10.3758/bf03198928
136. Rescorla, R. A., and Wagner, A. R. (1972). “A theory of Pavlovian conditioning: variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and nonreinforcement,” in Classical Conditioning II: Current Theory and Research, eds A. H. Black and W. F. Prokasy (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts), 64–99.
137. Reynolds, J. N. J., and Wickens, J. R. (2002). Dopamine-dependent plasticity of corticostriatal synapses. Neural Netw. 15, 507–521. doi:10.1016/s0893-6080(02)00045-x
138. Richler, J. J., Gauthier, I., Wenger, M. J., and Palmeri, T. J. (2008). Holistic processing of faces: perceptual and decisional components. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 34, 328–342. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.34.2.328
139. Riesenhuber, M., and Poggio, T. (1999). Hierarchical models of object recognition in cortex. Nat. Neurosci. 2, 1019–1025. doi:10.1038/14819
140. Riesenhuber, M., and Poggio, T. (2000). Models of object recognition. Nat. Neu-rosci. 3, 1199–1204. doi:10.1038/81479
141. Rolls, E. T., and Milward, T. (2000). A model of invariant object recognition in the visual system: learning rules, activation functions, lateral inhibition and information-based performance measures. Neural Comput. 12, 2547–2572. doi:10.1162/089976600300014845
142. Rosch, E., Mervis, C. B., Gray, W. D., Johnson, D. M., and Boyes-Braem, P. (1976). Basic objects in natural categories. Cogn. Psychol. 8, 382–439. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(76)90013-x
143. Rose, J., and Colombo, M. (2005). Neural correlates of executive control in the avian brain. PLoS Biol. 3:e190. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0030190
144. Rust, N. C., and Stocker, A. A. (2010). Ambiguity and invariance: two fundamental challenges for visual processing. Curr. Opin. Neurobiol. 20, 382–388. doi:10.1016/j.conb.2010.04.013
145. Schultz, W. (1998). Predictive reward signal of dopamine neurons. J. Neurophysiol. 80, 1–27.
146. Schultz, W. (2002). Getting formal with dopamine and reward. Neuron 36, 241– 263. doi:10.1016/s0896-6273(02)00967-4
147. Schweinberger, S. R., and Soukup, G. R. (1998). Asymmetric relationships among perceptions of facial identity, emotion and facial speech. J. Exp. Psy-chol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 24, 1748–1765. doi:10.1037//0096-1523.24.6.1748
148. Schyns, P. G., Petro, L. S., and Smith, M. L. (2009). Transmission of facial expressions of emotion co-evolved with their efficient decoding in the brain: behavioral and brain evidence. PLoS One 4:e5625. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0005625
149. Seger, C. A. (2008). How do the basal ganglia contribute to categorization? Their roles in generalization, response selection and learning via feedback. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 32, 265–278. doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2007.07.010
150. Serre, T., Oliva, A., and Poggio, T. (2007). A feedforward architecture accounts for rapid categorization. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U S A 104, 6424–6429. doi:10.1073/pnas.0700622104
151. Shanks, D. R. (1991). Categorization by a connectionist network. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 17, 433–443. doi:10.1037//0278-7393.17.3.433
152. Shettleworth, S. J. (2010). Clever animals and killjoy explanations in comparative psychology. Trends Cogn. Sci. 14, 477–481. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2010.07.002
153. Shimizu, T. (2009). Why can birds be so smart? background, significance and implications of the revised view of the avian brain. Comp. Cogn. Behav. Rev. 4, 103–115. doi:10.3819/ccbr.2009.40011
154. Shimizu, T., and Bowers, A. N. (1999). Visual circuits of the avian telencephalon: evolutionary implications. Behav. Brain Res. 98, 183–191. doi:10.1016/s0166-4328(98)00083-7
155. Shohamy, D., Myers, C. E., Kalanithi, J., and Gluck, M. A. (2008). Basal ganglia and dopamine contributions to probabilistic category learning. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 32, 219–236. doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2007.07.008
156. Siegel, S., and Allan, L. G. (1996). The widespread influence of the Rescorla-Wagner model. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 3, 314–321. doi:10.3758/bf03210755
157. Smith, J. D., Ashby, F. G., Berg, M. E., Murphy, M. S., Spiering, B. J., Cook, R. G., et al. (2011). Pigeons’ categorization is exclusively nonanalytic. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 18, 414–421. doi:10.3758/s13423-010-0047-8
158. Smith, J. D., Berg, M. E., Cook, R. G., Murphy, M. S., Crossley, M. J., Boomer, J., et al. (2012a). Implicit and explicit categorization: a tale of four species. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 36, 2355–2369. doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2012.09.003
159. Smith, J. D., Boomer, J., Zakrzewski, A. C., Roeder, J. L., Church, B. A., and Ashby, F. G. (2014). Deferred feedback sharply dissociates implicit and explicit category learning. Psychol. Sci. 25, 447–457. doi:10.1177/0956797613509112
160. Smith, J. D., Chapman, W. P., and Redford, J. S. (2010). Stages of category learning in monkeys (Macaca mulatta) and humans (Homo sapiens). J. Exp. Psychol. Anim. Behav. Process. 36, 39–53. doi:10.1037/a0016573
161. Smith, M. L., Cottrell, G. W., Gosselin, F., and Schyns, P. G. (2005). Transmitting and decoding facial expressions. Psychol. Sci. 16, 184–189. doi:10.1111/j.0956-7976.2005.00801.x
162. Smith, J. D., Crossley, M. J., Boomer, J., Church, B. A., Beran, M. J., and Ashby, F. G. (2012b). Implicit and explicit category learning by capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella). J. Comp. Psychol. 126, 294–304. doi:10.1037/a0026031
163. Smith, J. D., and Minda, J. P. (1998). Prototypes in the mist: the early epochs of category learning. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 24, 1411–1436. doi:10.1037//0278-7393.24.6.1411
164. Soto, F. A., Siow, J. Y. M., and Wasserman, E. A. (2012). View-invariance learning in object recognition by pigeons depends on error-driven associative learning processes. Vision Res. 62, 148–161. doi:10.1016/j.visres.2012.04.004
165. Soto, F. A., Vogel, E. H., Castillo, R. D., and Wagner, A. R. (2009). Generality of the summation effect in human causal learning. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. (Hove) 62, 877–889. doi:10.1080/17470210802373688
166. Soto, F. A., Vucovich, L., Musgrave, R., and Ashby, F. G. (2014). General recognition theory with individual differences: a new method for examining perceptual and decisional interactions with an application to face perception. Psychon. Bull. Rev. doi:10.3758/s13423-014-0661-y. [Epub ahead of print].
167. Soto, F. A., and Wasserman, E. A. (2010a). Comparative vision science: seeing eye to eye? Comp. Cogn. Behav. Rev. 5, 148–154. doi:10.3819/ccbr.2010.50011
168. Soto, F. A., and Wasserman, E. A. (2010b). Error-driven learning in visual categorization and object recognition: a common elements model. Psychol. Rev. 117, 349–381. doi:10.1037/a0018695
169. Soto, F. A., and Wasserman, E. A. (2010c). Integrality/separability of stimulus dimensions and multidimensional generalization in pigeons. J. Exp. Psychol. Anim. Behav. Process. 36, 194–205. doi:10.1037/a0016560
170. Soto, F. A., and Wasserman, E. A. (2010d). Missing the forest for the trees: object discrimination learning blocks categorization learning. Psychol. Sci. 21, 1510–1517. doi:10.1177/0956797610382125
171. Soto, F. A., and Wasserman, E. A. (2011). Asymmetrical interactions in the perception of face identity and emotional expression are not unique to the primate visual system. J. Vis. 11:24, 1–18. doi:10.1167/11.3.24
172. Soto, F. A., and Wasserman, E. A. (2012a). A category-overshadowing effect in pigeons: support for the common elements model of object categorization learning. J. Exp. Psychol. Anim. Behav. Process. 38, 322–328. doi:10.1037/a0028803
173. Soto, F. A., and Wasserman, E. A. (2012b). “Categorical learning in pigeons,” in Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning, ed N. M. Seel (Boston, MA: Springer), 512–515.
174. Soto, F. A., and Wasserman, E. A. (2012c). Visual object categorization in birds and primates: integrating behavioral, neurobiological and computational evidence within a “general process” framework. Cogn. Affect. Behav. Neurosci. 12, 220–240. doi:10.3758/s13415-011-0070-x
175. Spetch, M. L., and Friedman, A. (2003). Recognizing rotated views of objects: interpolation versus generalization by humans and pigeons. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 10, 135–140. doi:10.3758/bf03196477
176. Spetch, M. L., Friedman, A., and Reid, S. L. (2001). The effect of distinctive parts on recognition of depth-rotated objects by pigeons (Columba livia) and humans. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 130, 238–255. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.130.2.238
177. Stankiewicz, B. J. (2002). Empirical evidence for independent dimensions in the visual representation of three-dimensional shape. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 28, 913–932. doi:10.1037//0096-1523.28.4.913
178. Suri, R. E. (2002). TD models of reward predictive responses in dopamine neurons. Neural Netw. 15, 523–533. doi:10.1016/s0893-6080(02)00046-1
179. Sutton, R. S., and Barto, A. G. (1998). Reinforcement Learning: An Introduction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
180. Sutton, J. E., and Roberts, W. A. (2002). Failure to find evidence of stimulus generalization within pictorial categories in pigeons. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 78, 333–343. doi:10.1901/jeab.2002.78-333
181. Tarr, M. J., Bülthoff, H. H., Zabinski, M., and Blanz, V. (1997). To what extent do unique parts influence recognition across changes in viewpoint? Psychol. Sci. 8, 282–289. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.1997.tb00439.x
182. Tarr, M. J., Williams, P., Hayward, W. G., and Gauthier, I. (1998). Three-dimensional object recognition is viewpoint dependent. Nat. Neurosci. 1, 275–277. doi:10.1038/1089
183. Tjan, B. S., and Legge, G. E. (1998). The viewpoint complexity of an object-recognition task. Vision Res. 38, 2335–2350. doi:10.1016/s0042-6989(97)00255-1
184. Troje, N. F., Huber, L., Loidolt, M., Aust, U., and Fieder, M. (1999). Categorical learning in pigeons: the role of texture and shape in complex static stimuli. Vision Res. 39, 353–366. doi:10.1016/s0042-6989(98)00153-9
185. Ungerleider, L. G., and Haxby, J. V. (1994). “What” and “where” in the human brain. Curr. Opin. Neurobiol. 4, 157–165. doi:10.1016/0959-4388(94)90066-3
186. Van Hamme, L. J., Wasserman, E. A., and Biederman, I. (1992). Discrimination of contour-deleted images by pigeons. J. Exp. Psychol. Anim. Behav. Process. 18, 387–399. doi:10.1037//0097-7403.18.4.387
187. Vasconcelos, M. (2008). Transitive inference in non-human animals: an empirical and theoretical analysis. Behav. Processes 78, 313–334. doi:10.1016/j.beproc.2008.02.017
188. Vaughan, W. (1988). Formation of equivalence sets in pigeons. J. Exp. Psychol. Anim. Behav. Process. 14, 36–42. doi:10.1037//0097-7403.14.1.36
189. Vaughan, W., and Herrnstein, R. J. (1987). Choosing among natural stimuli. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 47, 5–16. doi:10.1901/jeab.1987.47-5
190. Vermaercke, B., Cop, E., Willems, S., D’Hooge, R., and Op de Beeck, H. P. (2014). More complex brains are not always better: rats outperform humans in implicit category-based generalization by implementing a similarity-based strategy. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 21, 1080–1086. doi:10.3758/s13423-013-0579-9
191. Vogels, R., Biederman, I., Bar, M., and Lorincz, A. (2001). Inferior temporal neurons show greater sensitivity to nonaccidental than to metric shape differences. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 13, 444–453. doi:10.1162/08989290152001871
192. Vyazovska, O. V., Teng, Y., and Wasserman, E. A. (2014). Attentional tradeoffs in the pigeon. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 101, 337–354. doi:10.1002/jeab.82
193. Waelti, P., Dickinson, A., and Schultz, W. (2001). Dopamine responses comply with basic assumptions of formal learning theory. Nature 412, 43–48. doi:10.1038/35083500
194. Wang, Y. C., Jiang, S., and Frost, B. J. (1993). Visual processing in pigeon nucleus rotundus: luminance, color, motion and looming subdivisions. Vis. Neurosci. 10, 21–30. doi:10.1017/s0952523800003199
195. Wasserman, E. A., and Bhatt, R. S. (1992). “Conceptualization of natural and artificial stimuli by pigeons,” in Cognitive Aspects of Stimulus Control, eds W. K. Honig and J. G. Fetterman (Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum), 203–223.
196. Wasserman, E. A., and Biederman, I. (2012). “Recognition by components: a bird’s eye view,” in How Animals See the World: Comparative Behavior, Biology and Evolution of Vision, eds O. F. Lazareva, T. Shimizu and E. A. Wasserman (New York: Oxford University Press), 191–216.
197. Wasserman, E. A., DeVolder, C. L., and Coppage, D. J. (1992). Non-similarity-based conceptualization in pigeons via secondary or mediated generalization. Psychol. Sci. 3, 374–379. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.1992.tb00050.x
198. Wasserman, E. A., Gagliardi, J. L., Cook, B. R., Kirkpatrick-Steger, K., Astley, S. L., and Biederman, I. (1996). The pigeon’s recognition of drawings of depth-rotated stimuli. J. Exp. Psychol. Anim. Behav. Process. 22, 205–221. doi:10.1037//0097-7403.22.2.205
199. Wasserman, E. A., Kiedinger, R. E., and Bhatt, R. S. (1988). Conceptual behavior in pigeons: categories, subcategories and pseudocategories. J. Exp. Psychol. Anim. Behav. Process. 14, 235–246. doi:10.1037//0097-7403.14.3.235
200. Wasserman, E. A., Kirkpatrick-Steger, K., Van Hamme, L. J., and Biederman, I. (1993). Pigeons are sensitive to the spatial organization of complex visual stimuli. Psychol. Sci. 4, 336–341. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.1993.tb00575.x
201. Wasserman, E. A., and Young, M. E. (2010). Same-different discrimination: the keel and backbone of thought and reasoning. J. Exp. Psychol. Anim. Behav. Process. 36, 3–22. doi:10.1037/a0016327
202. Wasserman, E. A., and Zentall, T. R. (2006). Comparative Cognition: Experimental Explorations of Animal Intelligence. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
203. Watanabe, S. (2001). Van Gogh, Chagall and pigeons: picture discrimination in pigeons and humans. Anim. Cogn. 4, 147–151. doi:10.1007/s100710100112
204. Watanabe, S., Sakamoto, J., and Wakita, M. (1995). Pigeons’ discrimination of painting by Monet and Picasso. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 63, 165–174. doi:10.1901/jeab.1995.63-165
205. Wylie, D. R., Gutierrez-Ibanez, C., Pakan, J. M., and Iwaniuk, A. N. (2009). The optic tectum of birds: mapping our way to understanding visual processing. Can. J. Exp. Psychol. 63, 328–338. doi:10.1037/a0016826
206. Wynne, B., and Güntürkün, O. (1995). Dopaminergic innervation of the telen-cephalon of the pigeon (Columba livia): a study with antibodies against tyrosine hydroxylase and dopamine. J. Comp. Neurol. 357, 446–464. doi:10.1002/cne.903570309
207. Yamashita, W., Wang, G., and Tanaka, K. (2010). View-invariant object recognition ability develops after discrimination, not mere exposure, at several viewing angles. Eur. J. Neurosci. 31, 327–335. doi:10.1111/j.1460-9568.2009.07057.x
208. Young, M. E., Peissig, J. J., Wasserman, E. A., and Biederman, I. (2001). Discrimination of geons by pigeons: the effects of variations in surface depiction. Anim. Learn. Behav. 29, 97–106. doi:10.3758/bf03192819
209. Zentall, T. R. (2012). “Selective and divided attention in birds,” in How Animals See the World: Comparative Behavior, Biology and Evolution of Vision, eds O. F. Lazareva, T. Shimizu and E. A. Wasserman (New York: Oxford University Press), 351–369.
210. Zentall, T. R., Wasserman, E. A., Lazareva, O. F., Thompson, R. R. K., and Ratterman, M. J. (2008). Concept learning in animals. Comp. Cogn. Behav. Rev. 3, 13–45. doi:10.3819/ccbr.2008.30002
211. Zentall, T. R., Wasserman, E. A., and Urcuioli, P. J. (2014). Associative concept learning in animals. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 101, 130–151. doi:10.1002/jeab.55
212. Zoccolan, D., Oertelt, N., DiCarlo, J. J., and Cox, D. D. (2009). A rodent model for the study of invariant visual object recognition. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U S A 106, 8748–8753. doi:10.1073/pnas.0811583106