Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31558750›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2019

Systematic Analysis of Pigeons' Discrimination of Pixelated Stimuli: A Hierarchical Pattern Recognition System Is Not Identifiable.

Juan D Delius, Julia A M Delius

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 42% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Object manipulation without hands.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2021
    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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Juan D DeliusExperimental Psychology, University of Konstanz, 78457, Konstanz, Germany. juan.delius@uni-konstanz.de.
Julia A M DeliusCenter for Lifespan Psychology, Max Planck Institute for Human Development, 14195, Berlin, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6347-310X
University of Konstanz · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Pigeons learned to discriminate two different patterns displayed with miniature light-emitting diode arrays. They were then tested with 84 interspersed, non-reinforced degraded pattern pairs. Choices ranged between 100% and 50% for one or other of the patterns. Stimuli consisting of few pixels yielded low choice scores whereas those consisting of many pixels yielded a broad range of scores. Those patterns with a high number of pixels coinciding with those of the rewarded training stimulus were preferred and those with a high number of pixels coinciding with the non-rewarded training pattern were avoided; a discrimination index based on this correlated 0.74 with the pattern choices. Pixels common to both training patterns had a minimal influence. A pixel-by-pixel analysis revealed that eight pixels of one pattern and six pixels of the other pattern played a prominent role in the pigeons' choices. These pixels were disposed in four and two clusters of neighbouring locations. A summary index calculated on this basis still only yielded a weak 0.73 correlation. The individual pigeons' data furthermore showed that these clusters were a mere averaging mirage. The pigeons' performance depends on deep learning in a midbrain-based multimillion synapse neuronal network. Pixelated visual patterns should be helpful when simulating perception of patterns with artificial networks.

Indexed as

Discrimination, PsychologicalVisual PerceptionAnimalsColumbidaeLearningMesencephalonPhotic StimulationVision, Ocular

Identifiers

PMID31558750
PMCPMC6763494
OpenAlexW2975519629

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.