Literature DB >> 25532894

Crows spontaneously exhibit analogical reasoning.

Anna Smirnova1, Zoya Zorina1, Tanya Obozova1, Edward Wasserman2.   

Abstract

Analogical reasoning is vital to advanced cognition and behavioral adaptation. Many theorists deem analogical thinking to be uniquely human and to be foundational to categorization, creative problem solving, and scientific discovery. Comparative psychologists have long been interested in the species generality of analogical reasoning, but they initially found it difficult to obtain empirical support for such thinking in nonhuman animals (for pioneering efforts, see [2, 3]). Researchers have since mustered considerable evidence and argument that relational matching-to-sample (RMTS) effectively captures the essence of analogy, in which the relevant logical arguments are presented visually. In RMTS, choice of test pair BB would be correct if the sample pair were AA, whereas choice of test pair EF would be correct if the sample pair were CD. Critically, no items in the correct test pair physically match items in the sample pair, thus demanding that only relational sameness or differentness is available to support accurate choice responding. Initial evidence suggested that only humans and apes can successfully learn RMTS with pairs of sample and test items; however, monkeys have subsequently done so. Here, we report that crows too exhibit relational matching behavior. Even more importantly, crows spontaneously display relational responding without ever having been trained on RMTS; they had only been trained on identity matching-to-sample (IMTS). Such robust and uninstructed relational matching behavior represents the most convincing evidence yet of analogical reasoning in a nonprimate species, as apes alone have spontaneously exhibited RMTS behavior after only IMTS training.
Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25532894     DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2014.11.063

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Curr Biol        ISSN: 0960-9822            Impact factor:   10.834


  15 in total

1.  Successive odor matching- and non-matching-to-sample in rats: A reversal design.

Authors:  Katherine Bruce; Katherine Dyer; Michael Mathews; Catharine Nealley; Tiffany Phasukkan; Ashley Prichard; Mark Galizio
Journal:  Behav Processes       Date:  2017-07-13       Impact factor: 1.777

2.  Breaking the perceptual-conceptual barrier: Relational matching and working memory.

Authors:  J David Smith; Brooke N Jackson; Barbara A Church
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2019-04

3.  The role of category density in pigeons' tracking of relevant information.

Authors:  Cassandra L Sheridan; Leyre Castro; Sol Fonseca; Edward A Wasserman
Journal:  Learn Behav       Date:  2019-09       Impact factor: 1.986

4.  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 5.  Evolution of cognitive and neural solutions enabling numerosity judgements: lessons from primates and corvids.

Authors:  Andreas Nieder
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2017-02-19       Impact factor: 6.237

Review 6.  Second verse, same as the first: learning generalizable relational concepts through functional repetition.

Authors:  Eduardo Mercado; Allison Scagel
Journal:  Anim Cogn       Date:  2022-10-12       Impact factor: 2.899

7.  Numerosity representations in crows obey the Weber-Fechner law.

Authors:  Helen M Ditz; Andreas Nieder
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2016-03-30       Impact factor: 5.349

8.  Impaired reasoning and problem-solving in individuals with language impairment due to aphasia or language delay.

Authors:  Juliana V Baldo; Selvi R Paulraj; Brian C Curran; Nina F Dronkers
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2015-10-26

9.  Time Does Not Help Orangutans Pongo abelii Solve Physical Problems.

Authors:  Johan Lind; Sofie Lönnberg; Tomas Persson; Magnus Enquist
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2017-02-07

10.  Performance in Object-Choice Aesop's Fable Tasks Are Influenced by Object Biases in New Caledonian Crows but not in Human Children.

Authors:  Rachael Miller; Sarah A Jelbert; Alex H Taylor; Lucy G Cheke; Russell D Gray; Elsa Loissel; Nicola S Clayton
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-12-09       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.