ArticleScientific reports2019
Systematic Analysis of Pigeons' Discrimination of Pixelated Stimuli: A Hierarchical Pattern Recognition System Is Not Identifiable.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Role of Brain-Derived Neurotrophic Factor (BDNF) in Neural Development and Cognitive Behavior in Pigeons: Advances and Future Perspectives.Current issues in molecular biology · 2026Review
- Seeing the Forest for the Trees, and the Ground Below My Beak: Global and Local Processing in the Pigeon's Visual System.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Review
- Recent Microscopy Advances and the Applications to Huntington's Disease Research.Journal of Huntington's disease · 2022Review
- Object manipulation without hands.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.