Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26113444›Full record

ArticleCognition2015

More than one way to see it: Individual heuristics in avian visual computation.

Andrea Ravignani, Gesche Westphal-Fitch, Ulrike Aust, Martin M Schlumpp, W Tecumseh Fitch

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cognition, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
11.3field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Budgerigars and zebra finches differ in how they generalize in an artificial grammar learning experiment.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2016
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Andrea RavignaniDepartment of Cognitive Biology, Faculty of Life Sciences, University of Vienna, Althanstrasse 14, 1090 Vienna, Austria; Language Evolution and Computation Research Unit, University of Edinburgh, EH8 9AD Edinburgh, UK. Electronic address: andrea.ravignani@gmail.com.
Gesche Westphal-FitchDepartment of Cognitive Biology, Faculty of Life Sciences, University of Vienna, Althanstrasse 14, 1090 Vienna, Austria.
Ulrike AustDepartment of Cognitive Biology, Faculty of Life Sciences, University of Vienna, Althanstrasse 14, 1090 Vienna, Austria.
Martin M SchlumppDepartment of Cognitive Biology, Faculty of Life Sciences, University of Vienna, Althanstrasse 14, 1090 Vienna, Austria; Haidlhof Research Station, University of Vienna/University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna/Messerli Research Institute, 2540 Bad Vöslau, Austria.
W Tecumseh FitchDepartment of Cognitive Biology, Faculty of Life Sciences, University of Vienna, Althanstrasse 14, 1090 Vienna, Austria; Haidlhof Research Station, University of Vienna/University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna/Messerli Research Institute, 2540 Bad Vöslau, Austria. Electronic address: tecumseh.fitch@univie.ac.at.
University of Vienna · ATUniversity of Veterinary Medicine Vienna · AT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Comparative pattern learning experiments investigate how different species find regularities in sensory input, providing insights into cognitive processing in humans and other animals. Past research has focused either on one species' ability to process pattern classes or different species' performance in recognizing the same pattern, with little attention to individual and species-specific heuristics and decision strategies. We trained and tested two bird species, pigeons (Columba livia) and kea (Nestor notabilis, a parrot species), on visual patterns using touch-screen technology. Patterns were composed of several abstract elements and had varying degrees of structural complexity. We developed a model selection paradigm, based on regular expressions, that allowed us to reconstruct the specific decision strategies and cognitive heuristics adopted by a given individual in our task. Individual birds showed considerable differences in the number, type and heterogeneity of heuristic strategies adopted. Birds' choices also exhibited consistent species-level differences. Kea adopted effective heuristic strategies, based on matching learned bigrams to stimulus edges. Individual pigeons, in contrast, adopted an idiosyncratic mix of strategies that included local transition probabilities and global string similarity. Although performance was above chance and quite high for kea, no individual of either species provided clear evidence of learning exactly the rule used to generate the training stimuli. Our results show that similar behavioral outcomes can be achieved using dramatically different strategies and highlight the dangers of combining multiple individuals in a group analysis. These findings, and our general approach, have implications for the design of future pattern learning experiments, and the interpretation of comparative cognition research more generally.

Indexed as

AnimalsBehavior, AnimalColumbidaeDiscrimination LearningHeuristicsPattern Recognition, VisualPhotic StimulationPsittaciformesReaction TimeSpecies SpecificityVisual PerceptionArtificial grammar learningLanguage evolutionLocal/global processingMaximum likelihoodModel selectionSpecies differences

Identifiers

PMID26113444
PMCPMC4710635
OpenAlexW625971378

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.