Object Recognition and Object Categorization in Animals

  • Masako Jitsumori
  • Juan D. Delius


One of the most important attributes of cognitive activities in both human and nonhuman animals is the ability to recognize individual objects and to categorize a variety of objects that share some properties. Wild-living spider monkeys, for example, individually recognize their partners and a large number of other con-specifics quickly and accurately regardless of their highly variable spatial attitudes and also discriminate them from other species (J. Delius, personal observation). Object recognition and object categorization are both equally vital for most of the advanced animals.


Object Recognition Comparison Stimulus Conditional Discrimination Prototype Effect Dissimilar Stimulus 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Anderson JA, Hinton GE (1981) Models of information processing in the brain. In: Hinton GE, Anderson A (eds) Parallel models of associative memory. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp 9–48Google Scholar
  2. Ashby FG, Maddox WT (1998) Stimulus categorization. In: Birnbaum MH (ed) Measurement, judgment, and decision making: handbook of perception and cognition. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 251–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Astley SL, Wasserman EA (1992) Categorical discrimination and generalization in pigeons: all negative stimuli are not created equal. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 18:193–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Astley SL, Wasserman EA (1998) Novelty and functional equivalence in superordinate categorization by pigeons. Anim Learn Behav 26:125–138Google Scholar
  5. Astley SL, Wasserman EA (1999) Superordinate category formation in pigeons: association with a common delay or probability of food reinforcement makes perceptually dissimilar stimuli functionally equivalent. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 25:415–432PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Aydin A, Pearce JM (1994) Prototype effects in categorization by pigeons. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 20:264–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bovet D, Vauclair J (1998) Functional categorization of objects and of their pictures in baboons (Papio anubis). Learn Motiv 29:309–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bradshaw RH, Dawkins MS (1993) Slides of conspecifics as representatives of real animals in laying hens (Gallus domesticus). Behav Process 28:165–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cabe PA, Healey ML (1979) Figure-background color differences and transfer of discrimination from objects to line drawings with pigeons. Bull Psychon Soc 13:124–126Google Scholar
  10. Cerella J (1977) Absence of perspective processing in the pigeon. Pattern Recogn 9:65–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cerella J (1990a) Pigeon pattern perception: limits on perspective invariance. Perception 19:141–159PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cerella J (1990b) Shape constancy in the pigeon: the perspective transformations decomposed. In: Commons ML, Herrnstein RJ, Kosslyn SM, Mumford DB (eds) Quantitative analysis of behavior: behavioral approaches to pattern recognition and concept formation, vol 8. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp 145–163Google Scholar
  13. Cole PD, Honig WL (1994) Transfer of a discrimination by pigeons (Columba livia) between pictured locations and the represented environments. J Comp Psychol 108:189–198PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cook RG, Katz JS (1999) Dynamic object perception by pigeons. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 25:194–210PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. D’Amato MR, Sant PV (1988) The person concept in monkeys (Cebus apella). J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 14:43–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. D’Amato MR, Salmon DP, Loukas E, Tomie A (1985) Symmetry and transitivity of conditional relations in monkeys (Cebus apella) and pigeons (Columba livia). J Exp Anal Behav 44:35–47PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Delius JD (1992) Categorical discrimination of objects and pictures by pigeons. Anim Learn Behav 20:301–311Google Scholar
  18. Delius JD, Hollard VD (1995) Orientation invariance in pattern recognition by pigeons and humans. J Comp Psychol 109:278–290PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Delius JD, Emmerton J, Hörster W, Jäger R, Ostheim J (1999) Picture-object recognition in pigeons. Current Psychology of Cognition 18:621–656Google Scholar
  20. Dépy D, Fagot J, Vauclair J (1997) Categorization of three-dimensional stimuli by humans and baboons: search for prototype effects. Behav Process 39:299–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Edelman S, Bülthoff HH (1992) Orientation dependence in the recognition of familiar and novel views of three-dimensional objects. Vision Res 32:2385–2400PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Edwards CA, Jagielo JA, Zentall TR, Hogan DE (1982) Acquired equivalence and distinctiveness in matching to sample by pigeons: mediation by reinforcer-specific expectancies. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 8:244–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Emmerton J (1983) Vision. In: Abs M (ed) Physiology and behavior of the pigeon. Academic Press, London, pp 245–266Google Scholar
  24. Evans CS, Macedonia JM, Marler P (1993) Effects of apparent size and speed on the response of chickens, Gallus gallus, to computer-generated stimulations of aerial predators. Anim Behav 46:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Fersen von L, Lea SEG (1990) Category discrimination by pigeons using five polymorphous features. J Exp Anal Behav 54:69–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Fields L, Verhave T, Fath SJ (1984) Stimulus equivalence and transitive associations: a methodological analysis. J Exp Anal Behav 42:143–157PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Fields L, Landon-Jimenez V, Buffington DM, Adams BJ (1995) Maintained nodal-distance effects in equivalence classes. J Exp Anal Behav 64:129–145PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Fujita K, Matsuzawa T (1986) A new procedure to study perceptual world on animals with sensory reinforcement: recognition of humans by a chimpanzee. Primates 27:283–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gibson JJ (1986) The ecological approach to visual perception. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJGoogle Scholar
  30. Goldman D, Homa D (1997) Integrative and metric properties of abstracted information as a function of category discriminability, instance variability, and experience. J Exp Psychol Hum Learn Mem 3:375–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hendricks J (1966) Flicker threshold as determined by a modified conditioned suppression procedure. J Exp Anal Behav 9:501–506PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Herbranson WT, Fremouw T, Shimp CP (1999) The randomization procedure in the study of categorization of multidimensional stimuli by pigeons. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 25:113–135PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Herman LM, Pack AA, Morris-Samuels P (1993) Representational and conceptual skills of dolphins. In: Roitblat HL, Herman LM, Nachtigall PE (eds) Language and communication: comparative perspectives. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp 403–422Google Scholar
  34. Herrnstein RJ (1985) Riddles of natural categorization. Philos Trans R Soc B 308:129–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Herrnstein RJ (1990) Levels of stimulus control: a functional approach. Cognition 37:133–166PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Herrnstein RJ, Loveland DH (1964) Complex visual concept in the pigeon. Science 146:549–551PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Herrnstein RJ, Loveland DH, Cable C (1976) Natural concepts in pigeons. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 2:285–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hollard DV, Delius DJ (1982) Rotation invariance in visual pattern recognition by pigeons and humans. Science 218:804–806PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hopkins WD, Fagot J, Vauclair J (1993) Mirror-image matching and mental rotation problem solving in baboons (Papio papio): unilateral input enhance performance. J Exp Psychol Gen 122:61–72PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Huber L, Lenz R (1993) A test of the linear feature model of polymorphous concept discrimination with pigeons. Q J Exp Psychol 46B:1–18Google Scholar
  41. Huber L, Lenz R (1996) Categorization of prototypical stimulus classes by pigeons. Q J Exp Psychol 48:134–147Google Scholar
  42. Iverson I, Sidman M, Carrigan P (1986) Stimulus definition in conditional discrimination. J Exp Anal Behav 45:297–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Jitsumori M (1993) Category discrimination of artificial polymorphous stimuli based on feature learning. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 19:244–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Jitsumori M (1994) Discrimination of artificial polymorphous categories by rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatto). Q J Exp Psychol 47:371–386Google Scholar
  45. Jitsumori M (1996) A prototype effects and categorization of artificial polymorphous stimuli in pigeons. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 22:405–419PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Jitsumori M, Matsuzawa T (1991) Picture perception in monkeys and pigeons: transfer of rightside-up versus upside-down discrimination of photographic objects across conceptual categories. Primates 32:473–482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Jitsumori M, Ohkubo O (1996) Orientation discrimination and categorization of photographs of natural objects by pigeons. Behav Process 38:205–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Jitsumori M, Yoshihara M (1997) Categorical discrimination of human facial expressions by pigeons: a test of the linear feature model. Q J Exp Psychol 50B:253–268Google Scholar
  49. Jitsumori M, Natori M, Okuyama K (1999) Recognition of moving video images of conspecifics by pigeons: effects of individuals, static and dynamic motion cues, and movement. Anim Learn Behav 27:303–315Google Scholar
  50. Keller FS, Schoenfeld WN (1950) Principles of psychology. Appleton-Century-Crofts, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  51. Knapp AG, Anderson JA (1984) Theory of categorization based on distributed memory storage. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 10(4):616–637CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Kuno H, Kitadate H, Iwamoto T (1994) Formation of transitivity in conditional matching to sample by pigeons. J Exp Anal Behav 62:399–408PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Lea SEG (1984) In what sense do pigeons learn concepts? In: Roitblat HL, Bever T, Terrace HS (eds) Animal cognition. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp 263–277Google Scholar
  54. Lea SEG, Harrison SN (1978) Discrimination of polymorphous stimulus sets by pigeons. Q J Exp Psychol 30:521–537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Lea SEG, Ryan CME (1983) Feature analysis of pigeons’ acquisition of concept discrimination. In: Commons ML, Herrnstein RJ, Wagner AR (eds) Quantitative analysis of behavior: discrimination processes, vol 4. Ballinger, Cambridge, pp 263–276Google Scholar
  56. Lea SEG, Ryan CME (1990) Unnatural concepts and the theory of concept discrimination in birds. In: Commons ML, Herrnstein RJ, Kosslyn S, Mumford D (eds) Quantitative analysis of behavior: behavioral approaches to pattern recognition and concept formation, vol 8. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp 165–185Google Scholar
  57. Lea SEG, Lohmann A, Ryan CME (1993) Discrimination of five-dimensional stimuli by pigeons: limitations of feature analysis. Q J Exp Psychol 46:19–42Google Scholar
  58. Lipkens R, Kop PFM, Matthijs W (1988) A test of symmetry and transitivity in the conditional discrimination performances of pigeons. J Exp Anal Behav 49:395–409PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Lohmann A, Delius JD, Hollard VD, Friesel M (1988) Discrimination of shape reflections and shape orientations by Columba livia. J Comp Psychol 102:3–13PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Lumsden EA (1977) Generalization of an operant response to photographs and drawing/silhouettes of a three-dimensional object at various orientations. Bull Psychon Soc 10:405–407Google Scholar
  61. Mackintosh NJ (1995) Categorization by people and pigeons: the twenty-second Bartlett memorial lectures. Q J Exp Psychol 48B(3):193–214Google Scholar
  62. Makino H, Jitsumori M (in press) Category learning and prototype effect in pigeons: a study by using morphed images of human faces. Jpn J Psychol (in Japanese)Google Scholar
  63. McIntire KD, Cleary J, Thompson T (1987) Conditional relations by monkeys: reflexivity, symmetry, and transitivity. J Exp Anal Behav 47:279–285PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. McQuoid LM, Galef BF Jr (1993) Social stimuli influencing feeding behavior of Burmese fowl: a video analysis. Anim Behav 46:13–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Miller RJ (1973) Cross-cultural research in the perception of pictorial materials. Psychol Bull 80:135–150PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Neumann PG (1974) An attribute frequency model for the abstraction of prototypes. Mem Cogn 2:241–248Google Scholar
  67. Neumann PG (1977) Visual prototype information with discontinuous representation of dimensions of variability. Mem Cogn 5:187–197Google Scholar
  68. Patterson-Kane E, Nicol CJ, Foster TM, Temple W (1997) Limited perception of video images by domestic hens. Anim Behav 53:951–963CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Powell RW (1967) The pulse-to-cycle fraction as a determinant of critical flicker fusion in the pigeon. Psychol Rec 17:151–160Google Scholar
  70. Rips L (1994) The psychology of proof: deductive reasoning in human thinking. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  71. Roberts WA (1996) Stimulus generalization and hierarchical structure in categorization by animals. In: Zentall TR, Smeets PM (eds) Stimulus class formation in humans and animals. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 35–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Roberts WA, Mazmanian DS (1988) Concept learning at different levels of abstraction by pigeons, monkeys, and people. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 14:247–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Ryan CME, Lea SEG (1994) Images of conspecifics as categories to be discriminated by pigeons and chickens: slides, video tapes, stuffed birds and live birds. Behav Process 33:155–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Sands SF, Lincoln CE, Wright AA (1982) Pictorial similarity judgments and the organization of visual memory in the rhesus monkey. J Exp Psychol Gen 3:369–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Savage-Rumbaugh ES, Rumbaugh DM, Smith ST, Lawson J (1980) Reference: the linguistic essential. Science 210:922–925PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Savage-Rumbaugh ES, Pate JL, Lawson J, Smith ST, Rosenbaum S (1983) Can a chimpanzee make a statement? J Exp Psychol Gen 112:457–492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Schrier AM, Brady PM (1987) Categorization of natural stimuli by monkeys (Macaca mulatta): effects of stimulus set size and modification of exemplars. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 13:136–143PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Schrier AM, Angarella R, Povar ML (1984) Studies of concept formation by stumptailed monkeys: concepts humans, monkeys, and letter A. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 10:564–584CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Schusterman RJ, Kastak D (1993) A California sea lion (Zalophus californianus) is capable of forming equivalence relations. Psychol Rec 43:823–839Google Scholar
  80. Schyns PG (1991) A modular neural network model of concept acquisition. Cogn Sci 15:461–508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Shepard RN, Metzler J (1971) Mental rotation of three-dimensional objects. Science 171:701–703PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Sidman M (1994) Equivalence relations and behavior: a research story. Authors Cooperative, BostonGoogle Scholar
  83. Sidman M, Tailby W (1982) Conditional discrimination vs. matching to sample: An expansion of the testing paradigm. J Exp Anal Behav 37:5–22PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Sidman M, Rauzin R, Lazar R, Cunningham S, Tailby W, Carrigan P (1982) A search for symmetry in the conditional discriminations of rhesus monkeys, baboons, and children. J Exp Anal Behav 37:23–44PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Steirn JN, Jackson-Smith P, Zentall TR (1991) Mediational use of internal representations of food and no-food events by pigeons. Learn Motiv 22:353–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Tolan JC, Rogers CM, Malone DR (1981) Cross-modal matching in monkeys: altered visual cues and delay. Neuropsychologia 19:289–300PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Tomonaga M, Matsuzawa T, Fujita K, Yamamoto J (1991) Emergence of symmetry in visual conditional discrimination by chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). Psychol Rep 68:51–60PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Ullman S (1989) Aligning pictorial descriptions: an approach to object recognition. Cognition 32:193–254PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Urcuioli PJ (1990) Some relationships between outcome expectancies and sample stimulus in pigeons’ delayed matching. Anim Learn Behav 18:302–314Google Scholar
  90. Urcuioli PJ (1996) Acquired equivalences and mediated generalization in pigeon’s matching-to-sample. In: Zentall TR, Smeets PM (eds) Stimulus class formation in humans and animals. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 55–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Urcuioli PJ, Zentall TR, Jackson-Smith P, Steirn JN (1989) Evidence for common coding in many-to-one matching: retention, intertriai interference, and transfer. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 15:264–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Urcuioli PJ, Zentall TR, DeMarse T (1995) Transfer to derived sample-comparison relations by pigeons following many-to-one versus one-to-many matching with identical training relations. QJ Exp Psychol 48B:158–178Google Scholar
  93. Vauclair J, Fagot J, Hopkins WD (1993) Rotation of mental images in baboons when the visual input is directed to the left cerebral hemisphere. Psychol Sci 4:99–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Vaughan W (1988) Formation of equivalence sets in pigeons. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 14:36–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Wasserman EA (1995) The conceptual abilities of pigeons. Am Sci 83:246–255Google Scholar
  96. Wasserman EA, Astley SL (1994) A behavioral analysis of concepts: its application to pigeons and children. In: Medin DL (ed) The psychology of learning and motivation. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  97. Wasserman EA, Tassinary LG, Bhatt RS, Sayasenh P (1989) Pigeons can discriminate emotional expression and individual identity from photographs of the human face. Presented at the annual meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Atlanta, GAGoogle Scholar
  98. Wasserman EA, DeVolder CL, Coppage DJ (1992) Nonsimilarity-based conceptualization in pigeons via secondary or mediated generalization. Psychol Sci 3:374–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Wasserman EA, Gagliardi JL, Astley SL, Cook BR, Kirkpatrick-Steger K, Biederman I (1996) The pigeon’s recognition of drawings of depth-rotated stimuli. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 22:205–221PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Watanabe S (1993) Object-picture equivalence in the pigeon: an analysis with natural concept and pseudo-concept discriminations. Behav Process 30:225–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Winner H, Ettlinger E (1978) Do chimpanzees recognize photographs as representations of objects? Neuropsychologia 17:413–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Wittgenstein L (1953) Philosophical investigations. Macmillan, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  103. Yamamoto J, Asano T (1995) Stimulus equivalence in a chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes). Psychol Rec 45:3–21Google Scholar
  104. Zentall TR (1998) Symbolic representation in animals: emergent stimulus relations in conditional discrimination learning. Anim Learn Behav 26:363–377Google Scholar
  105. Zentall TR, Urcuioli PJ, Jagielo JA, Jackson-Smith P (1989) Interaction of sample dimension and sample-comparison mapping on pigeons’ performance of delayed conditional discriminations. Anim Learn Behav 17:172–178Google Scholar
  106. Zentall TR, Steirn JN, Sherburne LM, Urcuioli PJ (1991) Common coding in pigeons assessed through partial versus total reversals of many-to-one conditional discrimination. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 17:194–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Zentall TR, Sherburne LM, Steirn JN (1992) Development of excitatory backward associations during the establishment of forward associations in a delayed conditional discrimination by pigeons. Anim Learn Behav 20:199–206Google Scholar
  108. Zentall TR, Sherburne LM, Urcuioli PJ (1993) Common coding in a many-to-one delayed matching task as evidenced by facilitation and interference effect. Anim Learn Behav 21:233–237Google Scholar
  109. Zentall TR, Sherburne LM, Urcuioli PJ (1995) Coding of hedonic and nonhedonic samples by pigeons in many-to-one delayed matching. Anim Learn Behav 23:189–196Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Masako Jitsumori
    • 1
  • Juan D. Delius
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Cognitive and Information SciencesChiba UniversityChibaJapan
  2. 2.Allgemeine PsychologieUniversität KonstanzKonstanzGermany

Personalised recommendations