Literature DB >> 22688635

Visual artificial grammar learning: comparative research on humans, kea (Nestor notabilis) and pigeons (Columba livia).

Nina Stobbe1, Gesche Westphal-Fitch, Ulrike Aust, W Tecumseh Fitch.   

Abstract

Artificial grammar learning (AGL) provides a useful tool for exploring rule learning strategies linked to general purpose pattern perception. To be able to directly compare performance of humans with other species with different memory capacities, we developed an AGL task in the visual domain. Presenting entire visual patterns simultaneously instead of sequentially minimizes the amount of required working memory. This approach allowed us to evaluate performance levels of two bird species, kea (Nestor notabilis) and pigeons (Columba livia), in direct comparison to human participants. After being trained to discriminate between two types of visual patterns generated by rules at different levels of computational complexity and presented on a computer screen, birds and humans received further training with a series of novel stimuli that followed the same rules, but differed in various visual features from the training stimuli. Most avian and all human subjects continued to perform well above chance during this initial generalization phase, suggesting that they were able to generalize learned rules to novel stimuli. However, detailed testing with stimuli that violated the intended rules regarding the exact number of stimulus elements indicates that neither bird species was able to successfully acquire the intended pattern rule. Our data suggest that, in contrast to humans, these birds were unable to master a simple rule above the finite-state level, even with simultaneous item presentation and despite intensive training.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22688635      PMCID: PMC3367688          DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2012.0096

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci        ISSN: 0962-8436            Impact factor:   6.237


  46 in total

1.  Natural categorization through multiple feature learning in pigeons.

Authors:  L Huber; N F Troje; M Loidolt; U Aust; D Grass
Journal:  Q J Exp Psychol B       Date:  2000-11

2.  Distinctiveness of color, form, and position cues for pigeons.

Authors:  L V JONES
Journal:  J Comp Physiol Psychol       Date:  1954-06

3.  Pigeons concurrently categorize photographs at both basic and superordinate levels.

Authors:  Olga F Lazareva; Kate L Freiburger; Edward A Wasserman
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2004-12

Review 4.  Cognitive ornithology: the evolution of avian intelligence.

Authors:  Nathan J Emery
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2006-01-29       Impact factor: 6.237

5.  Birdsong neurolinguistics: songbird context-free grammar claim is premature.

Authors:  Gabriël J L Beckers; Johan J Bolhuis; Kazuo Okanoya; Robert C Berwick
Journal:  Neuroreport       Date:  2012-02-15       Impact factor: 1.837

6.  Dog is a dog is a dog: infant rule learning is not specific to language.

Authors:  Jenny R Saffran; Seth D Pollak; Rebecca L Seibel; Anna Shkolnik
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  2006-12-26

7.  "Artificial grammar learning" in pigeons: a preliminary analysis.

Authors:  Walter T Herbranson; Charles P Shimp
Journal:  Learn Behav       Date:  2003-02       Impact factor: 1.986

8.  Inferential reasoning by exclusion in pigeons, dogs, and humans.

Authors:  Ulrike Aust; Friederike Range; Michael Steurer; Ludwig Huber
Journal:  Anim Cogn       Date:  2008-02-29       Impact factor: 3.084

9.  Simple rules can explain discrimination of putative recursive syntactic structures by a songbird species.

Authors:  Caroline A A van Heijningen; Jos de Visser; Willem Zuidema; Carel ten Cate
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2009-11-16       Impact factor: 11.205

10.  Rotational invariance in visual pattern recognition by pigeons and humans.

Authors:  V D Hollard; J D Delius
Journal:  Science       Date:  1982-11-19       Impact factor: 47.728

View more
  23 in total

1.  Pattern perception and computational complexity: introduction to the special issue.

Authors:  W Tecumseh Fitch; Angela D Friederici; Peter Hagoort
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2012-07-19       Impact factor: 6.237

2.  Budgerigars and zebra finches differ in how they generalize in an artificial grammar learning experiment.

Authors:  Michelle J Spierings; Carel Ten Cate
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2016-06-20       Impact factor: 11.205

Review 3.  Constraints on Statistical Learning Across Species.

Authors:  Chiara Santolin; Jenny R Saffran
Journal:  Trends Cogn Sci       Date:  2017-11-14       Impact factor: 20.229

Review 4.  Artificial grammar learning meets formal language theory: an overview.

Authors:  W Tecumseh Fitch; Angela D Friederici
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2012-07-19       Impact factor: 6.237

Review 5.  On the pursuit of the brain network for proto-syntactic learning in non-human primates: conceptual issues and neurobiological hypotheses.

Authors:  Christopher I Petkov; Benjamin Wilson
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2012-07-19       Impact factor: 6.237

6.  Performance of Deaf Participants in an Abstract Visual Grammar Learning Task at Multiple Formal Levels: Evaluating the Auditory Scaffolding Hypothesis.

Authors:  Beatrice Giustolisi; Jordan S Martin; Gesche Westphal-Fitch; W Tecumseh Fitch; Carlo Cecchetto
Journal:  Cogn Sci       Date:  2022-02

7.  Non-adjacent visual dependency learning in chimpanzees.

Authors:  Ruth Sonnweber; Andrea Ravignani; W Tecumseh Fitch
Journal:  Anim Cogn       Date:  2015-01-21       Impact factor: 3.084

8.  Mixed-complexity artificial grammar learning in humans and macaque monkeys: evaluating learning strategies.

Authors:  Benjamin Wilson; Kenny Smith; Christopher I Petkov
Journal:  Eur J Neurosci       Date:  2015-03       Impact factor: 3.386

9.  Auditory artificial grammar learning in macaque and marmoset monkeys.

Authors:  Benjamin Wilson; Heather Slater; Yukiko Kikuchi; Alice E Milne; William D Marslen-Wilson; Kenny Smith; Christopher I Petkov
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2013-11-27       Impact factor: 6.167

Review 10.  Hierarchical processing in music, language, and action: Lashley revisited.

Authors:  W Tecumseh Fitch; Mauricio D Martins
Journal:  Ann N Y Acad Sci       Date:  2014-04-02       Impact factor: 5.691

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.