Numerical and Quantitative Abilities

doi:10.1017/9781108564113.029

Part V - Numerical and Quantitative Abilities

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 July 2021

Edited by

Allison B. Kaufman ,

Josep Call and

James C. Kaufman

Show author details

Allison B. Kaufman: Affiliation:
University of Connecticut
Josep Call: Affiliation:
University of St Andrews, Scotland
James C. Kaufman: Affiliation:
University of Connecticut

Book contents

Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'

Type: Chapter
Information: The Cambridge Handbook of Animal Cognition , pp. 559 - 636

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108564113.029 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Agrillo, C. & Petrazzini, M. E. M. (2021). Numerical competence in fish. In Kaufmann, A. B., Call, J., & Kaufmann, J. C. (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Animal Cognition (pp. 580–601). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Agrillo, C., Dadda, M., Serena, G., & Bisazza, A. (2008). Do fish count? Spontaneous discrimination of quantity in female mosquitofish. Animal Cognition, 11, 495–503.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Agrillo, C. & Bisazza, A. (2014). Spontaneous versus trained numerical abilities. A comparison between two main tools to study numerical competence in non-human animals. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 234, 82–91.Google Scholar

Agrillo, C., Petrazzini, M. E. M., & Bisazza, A. (2014). Numerical acuity of fish is improved in the presence of moving targets, but only in the subitizing range. Animal Cognition, 17, 307–316.Google Scholar

Alston, L. & Humphreys, G. W. (2004). Subitization and attentional engagement by transient stimuli. Spatial Vision, 17, 17–50.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Baker, J. M. Shivik, J., & Jordan, K. (2011). Tracking of food quantity by coyotes (Canis latrans). Behavioural Processes, 88, 72–75.Google Scholar

Baker, J. M., Morath, J., Rodson, K. S., & Jordan, K. (2012). A shared system of representation governing quantity discrimination in canids. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 1–6.Google Scholar

Bensky, M. K., Gosling, S. D., & Sinn, D. L. (2013). The world from a dog’s point of view: A review and synthesis of dog cognition research. Advances in the Study of Behavior, 45, 209–406.Google Scholar

Beran, M. J. (2001). Summation and numerousness judgments of sequentially presented sets of items by chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 115(2), 181–191.Google Scholar

Beran, M. J. (2004). Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) respond to non visible sets after one-by-one addition and subtraction of items. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 118, 25–36.Google Scholar

Beran, M. J. (2007). Rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta) enumerate large and small sequentially presented sets of items using analog, numerical representations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 33, 55–63.Google Scholar PubMed

Beran, M. J. (2008). Monkeys (Macaca mulatta and Cebus apella) track, enumerate, and compare multiple sets of moving items. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 34, 63–74.Google Scholar

Beran, M. J. (2010). Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) accurately compare poured liquid quantities. Animal Cognition, 13, 641–649.Google Scholar

Beran, M. J. (2012). Quantity judgments of auditory and visual stimuli by chimpanzees. Journal of Experimental Psychology, Animal Behavior Processes, 38, 23–29.Google Scholar

Beran, M. J. & Beran, M. M. (2004). Chimpanzees remember the results of one-by-one addition of food items to sets over extended periods of time. Psychological Science, 15, 94–99. 10.1111/j.0963-7214.2004.01502004.xGoogle Scholar

Beran, M. J., Evans, T. A., & Harris, E. H. (2008). Perception of food amounts by chimpanzees based on the number, size, contour length and visibility of items. Animal Behaviour, 75, 1793–1802.Google Scholar

Beran, M. J. & Parrish, A. E. (2016). Going for More: Discrete and Continuous Quantity Judgments by Nonhuman Animals. In Henik, A (Ed.), Continuous Issues in Numerical Cognition (pp. 175–192). Cambridge, MA: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Beran, M. J., James, B. T., Whitman, W., & Parrish, A. E. (2016). Chimpanzees can point to smaller amounts of food to accumulate larger amounts but they still fail the reverse-reward contingency task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Learning & Cognition, 42, 347–358.Google Scholar PubMed

Bonnani, R., Natoli, E., Cafazzo, S., & Valsecchi, P. (2011). Free-ranging dogs assess the quantity of opponents in intergroup conflicts. Animal Cognition, 14, 103–115.CrossRef Google Scholar

Boysen, S. T. & Berntson, G. G. (1989). Numerical competence in a chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 103, 23–31.Google Scholar

Boysen, S. T. & Berntson, G. G. (1995). Quantity judgments: Perceptual vs. cognitive mechanisms in chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 21, 82–86.Google Scholar

Boysen, S. T., Mukobi, K. L., & Berntson, G. G. (1999). Overcoming response-bias using symbolic representation of number by chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). Animal Learning & Behavior, 27, 229–235.CrossRef Google Scholar

Boysen, S. T., Berntson, G. G., & Mukobi, K. L. (2001). Size matters: The impact of item size and quantity on array choice by chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 115(1), (106–110).Google Scholar

Ditz, H. M. & Nieder, A. (2015). Neurons selective to the number of visual items in the corvid songbird endbrain. PNAS, 112, 7827–7832.Google Scholar

Cantlon, J. F. & Brannon, E. M. (2006). Shared system for ordering small and larger numbers in monkeys and humans. Psychological Science, 17, 402–407.CrossRef Google Scholar

Cantlon, J. F. & Brannon, E. M. (2007) How much does number matter to a monkey (Mucaca mulatta)? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 33, 32–41. 10;1037/0097-77403.33.1.32Google Scholar

Cantlon, J. F., Merritt, D. J., & Brannon, E. M. (2016). Monkeys display classic signatures of human symbolic arithmetic. Animal Cognition, 19, 405–415.Google Scholar

Davis, H. & Pérusse, R. (1988). Numerical competence in animals: Definitional issues, current evidence, and a new research agenda. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 11, 561–615.CrossRef Google Scholar

Ditz, H. & Nieder, A. (2015). Neurons selective to the number of visual items in the corvidsongbird endbrain. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112, 7827–7832.CrossRef Google Scholar

Drucker, C. B. & Brannon, E. M. (2014). Rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta) map number onto space. Cognition, 132, 57–67.Google Scholar

Feigenson, L., Dehaene, S., & Spelke, E. (2004). Core systems of numbers. Trends in Cognitive Science, 8, 307–314.Google Scholar

Gallistel, C. R. & Gelman, R. (2000). Non-verbal numerical cognition: From reals to integers. Trends in Cognitive Science, 4, 59–65.Google Scholar

Gese, E. M. (2001). Territorial defense by coyotes (Canis latrans) in Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming: Who, how, where, when and why. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 79, 980–987.Google Scholar

Gomez-Laplaza, L. M. & Gerlai, R. (2011). Can angelfish (Pterophyllum scalare) count? Discrimination between different shoal sizes follows Weber’s Law. Animal Cognition, 14, 1–9.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Hanus, D. & Call, J. (2007). Discrete quantity judgments in the great apes (Pan paniscus, Pan troglodytes, Gorilla gorilla, Pongo pgymaeus): The effect of presenting whole sets versus item-by-item. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 121, 241–249.Google Scholar

Johnson-Ulrich, Z. & Vonk, J. (2018). Spatial representation of magnitude in humans (Homo sapiens), Western lowland gorillas (Gorilla gorilla gorilla), and American black bears (Ursus americanus). Animal Cognition, 21, 531–550.Google Scholar

Kitchen, D. M. (2004). Alpha male black howler monkeys’ responses to loud calls: Effect of numeric odds, male companion behaviour and reproductive investment. Animal Behaviour, 67, 125–139.Google Scholar

Krusche, P., Uller, C., & Dicke, U. (2010). Quantity discrimination in salamanders. Journal of Experimental Biology, 213, 1822–1828Google Scholar

Lucon-Xiccato, T., Gatto, E., & Bisazza, A. (2018). Quantity discrimination by treefrogs. Animal Behaviour, 139, 61–69. doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2018.03.005Google Scholar

MacDonald, D. W. & Carr, G. M. (1995). Variation in Dog Society: Between Resource Dispersion and Social Flux. In Serpell, J. (Ed.), The Domestic Dog: Its Evolution, Behaviour and Interactions with People (pp. 199–216). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Matsuzawa, T. (1985). Use of numbers by a chimpanzee. Nature, 315, 57–59.Google Scholar

Mehlis, M., Thünken, T., Bakker, T. C. M., & Frommen, J. G. (2015). Quantification acuity in spontaneous shoaling decisions of three-spined sticklebacks. Animal Cognition, 18, 1125–1131.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Moll, F. W. & Nieder, A. (2014). The long and short of it: Rule-based relative length discrimination in carrion crows (Corvus corone). Behavioural Processes, 107, 142–149.Google Scholar

Mou, Y. & van Marle, K. (2014). Two core systems of numerical representation in infants. Developmental Review, 34, 1–25.Google Scholar

Nieder, A. (2013). Coding of abstract quantity by “number neurons” of the primate brain. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 199, 1–16.Google Scholar

Parrish, A. E., James, B. T., & Beran, M. J. (2017). Exploring whether nonhuman primates show a bias to overestimate dense quantities. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 131, 59–68.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Pepperberg, I. M. (2014). Further evidence for addition and numerical competence by a Grey parrot (Psittacus erithacus). Animal Cognition, 15, 711–717.Google Scholar

Petrazzini, M. E. M., Agrillo, C., Izard, V., & Bisazza, A. (2016). Do humans (Homo sapiens) and fish (Pterophyllum scalare) make similar numerosity judgments? Journal of Comparative Psychology, 130, 380–390.Google Scholar

Rose, G. J. (2018). The numerical abilities of anurans and their neural correlates: Insights from neuroethological studies of acoustic communication. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 373, 20160512.Google Scholar

Rugani, R., Vallortigara, G., Konstantinos, P., & Regolin, L. (2015). Number-space mapping in the newborn chick resembles humans’ mental number line. Science, 30, 534–536.Google Scholar

Rugani, R. & Rosa-Salva, O. (2021). Spatial -numerical association in nonhuman animals. In Kaufmann, A. B., Call, J., & Kaufmann, J. C. (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Animal Cognition (pp. 602–620). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Rumbaugh, D. M., Savage-Rumbaugh, S., & Hegel, M. T. (1987). Summation in the chimpanzee. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behaviour Processes, 13, 107–115. doi.org/10.1037.0097-7403.13.2.107Google Scholar PubMed

Sillero-Zubiri, C. & Macdonald, D. W. (1998). Scent marking and territorial behaviour of Ethiopian wolves (Canis simensis). Journal of Zoology, 245, 351–361. doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7998.1998.tb00110.xGoogle Scholar

Stancher, G., Rugani, R., Regolin, L., & Vallortigara, G. (2015). Numerical discrimination by frogs (Bombina orientalis). Animal Cognition, 18, 219–229.Google Scholar

Suller, C., Jaeger, R., Guidry, G., & Martin, C. (2003). Salamanders (Plethodon cinereus) go for more: Rudiments of number in a species of basal vertebrate. Animal Cognition, 6, 105–112.Google Scholar

Utrata, E., Virányi, Z. & Range, Fr. (2012). Quantity discrimination in wolves (Canis lupus). Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 1–9.Google Scholar

Vonk, J. (2014). Quantity matching by an orangutan (Pongo abelii). Animal Cognition, 17, 297–306.Google Scholar

Vonk, J. & Beran, M.J. (2012). Bears count, too: Quantity estimation in black bears (Ursus americanus). Animal Behaviour, 84, 231–238.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Vonk, J., Torgerson-White, L., McGuire, M., Thueme, M., Thomas, J., & Beran, M. J. (2014). Quantity estimation and comparison in western lowland gorillas (Gorilla gorilla gorilla). Animal Cognition, 17, 755–765. doi.org/10.1007/s1007-013-0707-yGoogle Scholar

West, R. E. & Young, R. J. (2002). Do domestic dogs show any evidence of being able to count? Animal Cognition, 5, 183–186.Google Scholar

References

Agrillo, C. & Bisazza, A. (2018). Understanding the origin of number sense: A review of fish studies. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 373, e20160511.Google Scholar

Agrillo, C., Dadda, M., Serena, G., & Bisazza, A. (2008). Do fish count? Spontaneous discrimenation of quantity in female mosquitofish. Animal Cognition, 11(3), 495–503.Google Scholar

Agrillo, C., Dadda, M., Serena, G., & Bisazza, A. (2009). Use of number by fish. PLoS One, 4(3), e4786.Google Scholar

Agrillo, C., Piffer, L., & Bisazza, A. (2010). Large number discrimination by mosquitofish. PLoS One, 5(12), e15232.Google Scholar

Agrillo, C., Piffer, L., & Bisazza, A. (2011). Number versus continuous quantity in numerosity judgments by fish. Cognition, 119, 281–287.Google Scholar

Agrillo, C., Piffer, L., Bisazza, A., & Butterworth, B. (2012a). Evidence for two numerical systems that are similar in humans and guppies. PLoS One, 7(2), e31923.Google Scholar

Agrillo, C., Miletto Petrazzini, M. E., Piffer, L., Dadda, M., & Bisazza, A. (2012b). A new training procedure for studying discrimination learning in fish. Behavioural Brain Research, 230(2), 343–348.Google Scholar

Agrillo, C., Miletto Petrazzini, M. E., Tagliapietra, C., & Bisazza, A. (2012c). Inter-specific differences in numerical abilities among teleost fish. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 483. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00483Google Scholar

Agrillo, C. & Bisazza, A. (2014). Spontaneous versus trained numerical abilities: A comparison between the two main tools to study numerical competence in non-human animals. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 234, 82–91.Google Scholar

Agrillo, C., Parrish, A. E., & Beran, M. J. (2016). How illusory is the solitaire illusion? Assessing the degree of misperception of numerosity in adult humans. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1663.Google Scholar

Beran, M. J., Perdue, B. M., Parrish, A. E., & Evans, T. A. (2012). Do social conditions affect capuchin monkeys’ (Cebus apella) choices in a quantity judgment task? Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 492.Google Scholar

Beran, M. J., McIntyre, J. M., Garland, A., & Evans, T. A. (2013). What counts for “counting”? Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) respond appropriately to relevant and irrelevant information in a quantity judgment task. Animal Behaviour, 85, 987–993.Google Scholar

Berger, J. (1978). Group-size, foraging, and antipredator ploys: An analysis of bighorn sheep decisions. Behavioural Ecology and Sociobiology, 4, 91–99.Google Scholar

Biro, D. & Matsuzawa, T. (2001). Use of numerical symbols by the chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes): Cardinals, ordinals, and the introduction of zero. Animal Cognition, 4, 193–199.Google Scholar

Bisazza, A., Piffer, L., Serena, G., & Agrillo, C. (2010). Ontogeny of numerical abilities in fish. PLoS One, 5(11), e15516.Google Scholar

Bisazza, A., Tagliapietra, C., Bertolucci, C., Foà, A., & Agrillo, C. (2014a). Non-visual numerical discrimination in a blind cavefish (Phreatichthys andruzzii). Journal of Experimental Biology, 217, 1902–1909.Google Scholar

Bisazza, A., Agrillo, C., & Lucon-Xiccato, T. (2014b). Extensive training extends numerical abilities of guppies. Animal Cognition, 17(6), 1413–1419.Google Scholar

Bogale, B. A., Kamata, N., Mioko, K., & Sugita, S. (2011). Quantity discrimination in jungle crows, Corvus macrorhynchos. Animal Behaviour, 82(4), 635–641.CrossRef Google Scholar

Bogale, B. A., Aoyama, M., & Sugita, S. (2014). Spontaneous discrimination of food quantities in the jungle crow, Corvus macrorhynchos. Animal Behaviour, 94, 73–78.Google Scholar

Brannon, E. M., Wusthoff, C. J., Gallistel, C. R., & Gibbon, J. (2001). Numerical subtraction in the pigeon: Evidence for a linear subjective number scale. Psychological Science, 12(3), 238–243. doi: 10.1111/1467-9280.00342Google Scholar

Brock, A. J., Sudwarts, A., Daggett, J., Parker, M. O., & Brennan, C. H. (2017). A fully automated computer based Skinner box for testing learning and memory in zebrafish. bioRxiv, doi: 10.1101/110478Google Scholar

Buckingham, J. N., Wong, B. B. M., & Rosenthal, G. G. (2007). Shoaling decisions in female swordtails: How do fish gauge group size? Behaviour, 144, 1333–1346.Google Scholar

Cantlon, J. F. & Brannon, E. M. (2007). Basic math in monkeys and college students. PLoS Biology, 5, 2912–2919.Google Scholar

Chittka, L. & Geiger, K. (1995). Can honey bees count landmarks? Animal Behaviour, 49, 159–164.Google Scholar

Chivers, D. P. & Smith, R. J. F. (1994). The role of experience and chemical alarm signalling in predator recognition by fathead minnows, Pimephales promelas. Journal of Fish Biology, 44, 273–285.Google Scholar

Chivers, D. P. & Smith, R. J. F. (1995). Fathead minnows, Pimephales promelas, learn to recognize chemical stimuli from high risk habitats by the presence of alarm substance. Behaviorual Ecology, 6, 155–158.Google Scholar

Dadda, M., Piffer, L., Agrillo, C., & Bisazza, A. (2009). Spontaneous number representation in mosquitofish. Cognition, 112(2), 343–348.Google Scholar

Davis, H. (1984). Discrimination of the number three by a raccoon (Procyon lotor). Animal Learning and Behaviour, 12, 409–413.Google Scholar

Davis, H. & Memmott, J. (1982). Counting behavior in animals: A critical evaluation. Psychology Bulletin, 92, 547–571.Google Scholar

Davis, H. & Perusse, R. (1988). Numerical competence in animals: Definitional issues, current evidence and a new research agenda. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 11, 561–579.Google Scholar

Dehaene, S., Dehaene-Lambertz, G., & Cohen, L. (1998). Abstract representations of numbers in the animal and human brain. Trends in Neuroscience, 21(8), 355–361.Google Scholar

Emmerton, J. & Renner, J. C. (2009). Local rather than global processing of visual arrays in numerosity discrimination by pigeons (Columba livia). Animal Cognition, 12, 511–526.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Frith, C. D., & Frith, U. (1972). The solitaire illusion: An illusion of numerosity. Perception & Psychophysics, 11, 409–410.Google Scholar

Garland, A., Low, J., & Burns, K. C. (2012). Large quantity discrimination by North Island robins (Petroica longipes). Animal Cognition, 15(6), 1129–1140.Google Scholar

Garland, A., Beran, M.J., McIntyre, J., & Low, J. (2014). Relative quantity judgments between discrete spatial arrays by chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and New Zealand robins (Petroica longipes). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 28(3), 307–317.Google Scholar

Gómez-Laplaza, L. M. & Gerlai, R. (2011a). Can angelfish (Pterophyllum scalare) count? Discrimination between different shoal sizes follows Weber’s law. Animal Cognition, 14(1), 1–9.Google Scholar

Gómez-Laplaza, L. M. & Gerlai, R. (2011b). Spontaneous discrimination of small quantities: Shoaling preferences in angelfish (Pterophyllum scalare). Animal Cognition, 14(4), 565–574.Google Scholar

Gómez-Laplaza, L. M. & Gerlai, R. (2013). Quantification abilities in angelfish (Pterophyllum scalare): The influence of continuous variables. Animal Cognition, 16(3), 373–383.Google Scholar

Gómez-Laplaza, L. M. & Gerlai, R. (2015). Angelfish (Pterophyllum scalare) discriminate between small quantities: A role of memory. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 129, 78–83.Google Scholar

Gómez-Laplaza, L. M., Diaz-Sotelo, E., & Gerlai, R. (2018). Quantity discrimination in angelfish, Pterophyllum scalare: A novel approach with food as the discriminant. Animal Behaviour, 142, 19–30.Google Scholar

Gross, H. J., Pahl, M., Si, A., Zhu, H., Tautz, J., & Zhang, S. (2009). Number-based visual generalisation in the honeybee. PLoS One, 4(1), e4263.Google Scholar

Hager, M. C. & Helfman, G. S. (1991). Safety in numbers: Shoal size choice by minnows under predatory threat. Behaviour Ecology and Sociobiology, 29, 271–276.Google Scholar

Hauser, M. D., Carey, S., & Hauser, L. B. (2000). Spontaneous number representation in semi-free-ranging rhesus monkeys. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 267(1445), 829–833.Google Scholar

Hauser, M. D., Dehaene, S., Dehaene-Lambertz, G., & Patalano, A. L. (2002). Spontaneous number discrimination of multi-format auditory stimuli in cotton-top tamarins (Saguinus oedipus). Cognition, 86, B23–B32.Google Scholar

Izard, V., Sann, C., Spelke, E. S., & Streri, A. (2009). Newborn infants perceive abstract numbers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 106, 10382–10385.Google Scholar

Jaakkola, K., Fellner, W., Erb, L., Rodriguez, M., & Guarino, E. (2005). Understanding of the concept of numerically “less” by bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 119, 286–303.Google Scholar

Jordan, K. E., Maclean, E. L., & Brannon, E. M. (2008). Monkeys match and tally quantities across senses. Cognition, 108, 617–625.Google Scholar

Judge, P. G., Evans, T. A., & Vyas, D. K. (2005). Ordinal representation of numeric quantities by brown capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behaviour Processes, 31, 79–94.Google Scholar

Krause, J. & Godin, J. G. J. (1995). Predator preferences for attacking particular group sizes: Consequences for predator hunting success and prey predation risk. Animal Behaviour, 50, 465–473.Google Scholar

Landeau, L. & Terborgh, J. (1986). Oddity and the “confusion effect” in predation. Animal Behaviour, 34(5), 1372–1380.Google Scholar

Lemaitre, J. F., Ramm, S. A., Hurst, J. L., & Stockley, P. (2011). Social cues of sperm competition influence accessory reproductive gland size in a promiscuous mammal. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 278, 1171–1176.Google Scholar

Lindström, K. & Ranta, E. (1993). Social preferences by male guppies, Poecilia reticulata, based on shoal size and sex. Animal Behaviour, 46, 1029–1031.Google Scholar

Lucon-Xiccato, T., Miletto Petrazzini, M. E., Agrillo, C., & Bisazza, A. (2015). Guppies discriminate between two quantities of food items but prioritize item size over total amount. Animal Behaviour, 107, 183–191.CrossRef Google Scholar

Lucon-Xiccato, T., Dadda, M., Gatto, E., & Bisazza, A. (2017). Development and testing of a rapid method for measuring shoal size discrimination. Animal Cognition, 20(2), 149–157.Google Scholar

Miletto Petrazzini, M. E., Agrillo, C., Izard, V., & Bisazza, A. (2015a). Relative versus absolute numerical representation in fish: Can guppies represent ‘fourness’? Animal Cognition, 18(5), 1007–1117.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Miletto Petrazzini, M. E., Lucon-Xiccato, T., Agrillo, C., & Bisazza, A. (2015b). Use of ordinal information by fish. Scientific Reports, 5, (1–11)Google Scholar

Miletto Petrazzini, M. E., Agrillo, C., Izard, V., & Bisazza, A. (2016). Do humans (Homo sapiens) and fish (Pterophyllum scalare) make similar numerosity judgments? Journal of Comparative Psychology, 130(4), 380–390.Google Scholar

Miletto Petrazzini, M. E., Parrish, A. E., Beran, M. J., & Agrillo, C. (2018). Exploring the Solitaire Illusion in guppies (Poecilia reticulata). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 132(1), 48–57.Google Scholar

Miletto Petrazzini, M. E., Pecunioso, A., Dadda, M., & Agrillo, C. (2019) The impact of brain lateralization and anxiety-like behavior in an extensive operant conditioning task in zebrafish (Danio rerio). Symmetry, 11(11), 1395.CrossRef Google Scholar

Milinski, M. (1977a). Experiments on the selection by predators against spatial oddity of their prey. Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie, 43, 311–325.Google Scholar

Milinski, M. (1977b). Do all members of a swarm suffer the same predation? Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie, 45, 373–388.Google Scholar

Morgan, M. J. & Godin, J. G. J. (1985). Antipredator benefits of schooling in a cyprinodontid fish, the banded killifish (Fundulus diaphanus). Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie, 70, 236–246.Google Scholar

Parrish, A. E., Agrillo, C., Perdue, B. M., & Beran, M. J. (2016). The elusive illusion: Do children (Homo sapiens) and capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella) see the solitaire illusion? Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 142, 83–95.Google Scholar

Pepperberg, I. M. (2006). Grey parrot (Psittacus erithacus) numerical abilities: Addition and further experiments on a zero-like concept. Journal Comparative Psychology, 120(1), 1–11.Google Scholar

Potrich, D., Sovrano, V. A., Stancher, G., & Vallortigara, G. (2015). Quantity discrimination by zebrafish (Danio rerio). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 129, 388–339.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Potrich, D., Rugani, R., Sovrano, V. A., Regolin, L., & Vallortigara, G. (2019). Use of numerical and spatial information in ordinal counting by zebrafish. Scientific Report, 9, 18323.Google Scholar

Pritchard, V. L. Lawrence, J. Butlin, R. K., & Krause, J. (2001). Shoal choice in zebrafish, Danio rerio: The influence of shoal size and activity. Animal Behaviour, 62, 1085–1088.Google Scholar

Roberts, G. (1996). Why individual vigilance declines as group size increases. Animal Behaviour, 51, 1077–1086.Google Scholar

Roberts, W. A. & Mitchell, S. (1994). Can a pigeon simultaneously process temporal and numerical information? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behaviour Processes, 20, 66–78.Google Scholar

Rugani, R., Regolin, L., & Vallortigara, G. (2007). Rudimental numerical competence in 5-day-old domestic chicks (Gallus gallus): Identification of ordinal position. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 33, 21–31.Google Scholar

Rugani, R., Regolin, L., & Vallortigara, G. (2008). Discrimination of small numerosities in young chicks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 34(3), 388–399.Google Scholar

Rugani, R., Fontanari, L., Simoni, E., Regolin, L., & Vallortigara, G. (2009). Arithmetic in newborn chicks. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, B, 276(1666), 2451–2460.Google Scholar

Schaller, G. B. (1972). The Serengeti Lion. A Study of Predator-Prey Relations. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar

Smith, C. C. & Sargent, R. C. (2006). Female fitness declines with increasing female density but not male harassment in the western mosquitofish, Gambusia affinis. Animal Behaviour, 71, 401–407.Google Scholar

Stancher, G., Sovrano, V. A., Potrich, D., & Vallortigara, G. (2013). Discrimination of small quantities by fish (redtail splitfin, Xenotoca eiseni). Animal Cognition, 16(2), 307–312.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Suzuki, K. & Kobayashi, T. (2000). Numerical competence in rats (Rattus norvegicus): Davis & Bradford (1986) extended. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 114(1), 73–85.Google Scholar

Tokita, M., Ashitani, Y., & Ishiguchi, A. (2013). Is approximate numerical judgment truly modality-independent? Visual, auditory, and cross-modal comparisons. Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics, 75, 1852–1861.Google Scholar

Vonk, J. & Beran, M. J. (2012). Bears “count” too: Quantity estimation and comparison in black bears (Ursus americanus). Animal Behaviour, 84, 231–238.Google Scholar

Wertheimer, M. (1923). Laws of Organization in Perceptual Forms. A Source Book of Gestalt Psychology. London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar

West, R. E., & Young, R. J. (2002). Do domestic dogs show any evidence of being able to count? Animal Cognition, 5(3), 183–186.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Xiong, W., Yi, L. C., Tang, Z., Zhao, X., & Fu, S. J. (2018). Quantity discrimination in fish species: Fish use non-numerical continuous quantity traits to select shoals. Animal Cognition, 21, 813–820.Google Scholar

References

Adachi, I. (2014). Spontaneous spatial mapping of learned sequence in chimpanzees: Evidence for a snarc-like effect. PLoS One, 9, e90373. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0090373Google Scholar

Albert, M. L. (1973). A simple test of visual neglect. Neurology, 23(6), 658–664.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Berkay, D., Çavdaroğlu, B., & Balcı, F. (2016). Probabilistic numerical discrimination in mice. Animal Cognition, 19, 351–365. doi: 10.1007/s10071-015-0938-1Google Scholar

Biro, D. & Matsuzawa, T. (2001). Use of numerical symbols by the chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes): Cardinals, ordinals and the introduction of zero. Animal Cognition, 4, 193–199. doi: 10.1007/s100710100086Google Scholar

Brugger, P. (2015). Chicks with a number sense. Science, 347(6221), 477–478. doi: 10.1126/science.aaa4854Google Scholar

Cantlon, J. F. & Brannon, E. M. (2007). How much does number matter to a monkey? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 33, 32–41. doi: 10.1037/0097-7403.33.1.32Google Scholar

Carey, S. (2004). Bootstrapping and the origin of concept. Daedalus, 133, 59–68. doi: 10.1162/001152604772746701Google Scholar

Carey, S. (2009). The Origin of Concepts. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Cordes, S., Gelman, R., Gallistel, C. R., & Whalen, J. (2001). Variability signatures distinguish verbal from nonverbal counting for both small and large numbers. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 8, 698–707. doi: 10.3758/bf03196206Google Scholar

Daisley, J. N., Mascalzoni, E., Rosa-Salva, O., Rugani, R., & Regolin, L. (2009). Lateralization of social cognition in the domestic chicken (Gallus gallus). Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London – B, 364, 965–981. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2008.0229Google Scholar

Davis, H. & Pérusse, R. (1988). Numerical competence in animals: Definitional issues, current evidence, and new research agenda. Behavioural and Brain Sciences, 11, 561-615. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X00053437Google Scholar

Dehaene, S. (2011). The Number Sense: How the Mind Creates Mathematics, Revised and Updated Edition. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Dehaene, S., Bossini, S., & Giraux, P. (1993). The mental representation of parity and number magnitude. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 122(3), 371–396. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.122.3.371Google Scholar

Deng, C. & Rogers, L. J. (1998). Bilaterally projecting neurons in the two visual pathways of chicks. Brain Research, 794, 281–290.Google Scholar

Diekamp, B., Regolin, L., Güntürkün, O., & Vallortigara, G. (2005). A left-sided visuospatial bias in birds. Current Biology, 15, R372–R373.Google Scholar

Ditz, H. M., & Nieder, A. (2015). Neurons selective to the number of visual items in the corvid songbird endbrain. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 112(25), 7827–7832. doi: 0.1073/pnas.1504245112Google Scholar

Drucker, C. B. & Brannon, E. M. (2014). Rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta) map number onto space. Cognition, 132, 57–67.Google Scholar

Eger, E., Michel, V., Thirion, B., Amadon, A., Dehaene, S., & Kleinschmidt, A. (2009). Deciphering cortical number coding from human brain activity patterns. Current Biology, 19, 1608–1615.Google Scholar

Feigenson, L., Dehaene, S., & Spelke, E. (2004). Core systems of number. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8, 307–314. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2004.05.002Google Scholar

Fontanari, L., Rugani, R., Regolin, L., & Vallortigara, G. (2011). Object individuation in three-day old chicks: Use of property and spatiotemporal information. Developmental Science, 14(5), 1235–1244. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2011.01074.x Google Scholar

Fontanari, L., Rugani, R., Regolin, L., & Vallortigara, G. (2014). Use of kind information for object individuation in young domestic chicks. Animal Cognition, 17(4), 925–935. doi: 10.1007/s10071-013-0725-9Google Scholar

Gallistel, C. R. & Gelman, R. (1992). Preverbal and verbal counting and computation. Cognition, 44, 43–74. doi: 10.1016/0010-0277(92)90050-rCrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Galton, F. (1880). Visualised numerals. Nature, 21, 252–256. doi: 10.1038/021252a0Google Scholar

Gazes, R. P., Diamond, R. F. L., Hope, J. M., Caillaud, D., Stoinski, T. S., & Hampton, R. R. (2017). Spatial representation of magnitude in gorillas and orangutans. Cognition, 168, 312–319.Google Scholar

Hardy, O., Leresche, N., & Jassik-Gerschenfeld, D. (1984). Postsynaptic potentials in neurons of the pigeon’s optic tectum in response to afferent stimulation from the retina and other visual structures. Brain Research, 311, 65–67. doi: 10.1016/0006-8993(84)91399-4Google Scholar

Harvey, B. M., Klein, B. P. Petridou, N., & Dumoulin, S. O. (2013). Topographic representation of numerosity in the human parietal cortex. Science, 341(6150), 1123–1126. doi: 10.1126/science.1239052Google Scholar

Jarvis, E. D., Güntürkün, O., András Csillag, L. B., Karten, H., Kuenze, W. et al. (2005). Avian brains and a new understanding of vertebrate brain evolution. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 6, 151–159.Google Scholar

Kawai, N. & Matsuzawa, T. (2000). Numerical memory span in a chimpanzee. Nature 403, 39–40. doi: 10.1038/47405Google Scholar

Moyer, R. S. & Landaeuer, T. K. (1967). Time required for judgments of numerical inequality. Nature, 215, 1519–1520. doi: 10.1038/2151519a0CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Ocklenburg, S. (2017). Tachistoscopic Viewing and Dichotic Listening. In Rogers, L. J. & Vallortigara, G. (Eds.), Lateralized Brain Functions (pp. 3–28). New York: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar

Ocklenburg, S. & Güntürkün, O. (2012). Hemispheric asymmetries: The comparative view. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 1–9. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00005Google Scholar

Park, J. & Brannon, E. M. (2013). Training the approximate number system improves math proficiency. Psychological Science, 24, 2013–2019. doi: 10.1177/0956797613482944Google Scholar

Piazza, M. Izard, V. Pinel, P. Le Bihan, D., & Dehaene, S. (2004). Tuning curves for approximate numerosity in the human intraparietal sulcus. Neuron, 44, 547–555.Google Scholar

Rashid, N. & Andrew, R. J. (1989). Right hemisphere advantages for topographical orientation in the domestic chick. Neuropsychologia, 27, 937–948. doi: 10.1016/0028-3932(89)90069-9Google Scholar

Regolin, L. (2006). The case of the line-bisection: When both humans and chickens wander left. Cortex, 42, 101–103. doi: 10.1016/S0010-9452(08)70330-7Google Scholar

Regolin, L., Garzotto, B., Rugani, R., & Vallortigara, G. (2005a). Working memory in the chick: Parallel and lateralized mechanisms for encoding of object- and position-specific information. Behavioural Brain Research, 157, 1–9. doi: 10.1016/j.bbr.2004.06.012Google Scholar

Regolin, L., Rugani, R., Pagni, P., & Vallortigara, G. (2005b). Delayed search for a social and a non-social goal object by the young domestic chick (Gallus gallus). Animimal Behaviour, 70, 855–864. doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2005.01.014Google Scholar

Restle, F. (1970). Speed of adding and comparing numbers. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 83, 274–278.Google Scholar

Robert, F. & Cuénod, M. (1969). Electrophysiology of the intertectal commissures in the pigeon. I. Analysis of the pathways. Experimental Brain Research, 9, 116–122.Google Scholar

Rogers, L. J., Vallortigara, G., & Andrew, R. J. (2013). Divided Brains: The Biology and Behavior of Brain Asymmetries. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Rugani, R., Regolin, L., & Vallortigara, G. (2007). Rudimental competence in 5-day-old domestic chicks: Identification of ordinal position. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behaviour Processes, 33(1), 21–31. doi: 10.1037/0097-7403.33.1.21Google Scholar

Rugani, R., Fontanari, L., Simoni, E., Regolin, L., & Vallortigara, G. (2009). Arithmetic in newborn chicks. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 276, 2451–2460. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2009.0044Google Scholar

Rugani, R., Kelly, M. D., Szelest, I., Regolin, L., & Vallortigara, G. (2010a). It is only humans that count from left to right? Biology Letters, 6, 290–292. doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2009.0960Google Scholar

Rugani, R., Regolin, L., & Vallortigara, G. (2010b). Imprinted numbers: Newborn chicks’ sensitivity to number vs. continuous extent of objects they have been reared with. Developmental Science, 13(5), 790–797. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-7687.2009.0Google Scholar

Rugani, R., Vallortigara, G., Vallini, B., & Regolin, L. (2011a). Asymmetrical number-space mapping in the avian brain. Neurobiology of Learning and Memory, 95, 231–238. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nlm.2010.11.012 Google Scholar

Rugani, R., Regolin, L., & Vallortigara, G. (2011b). Summation of large numerousness by newborn chicks. Frontiers of Comparative Psychology, 7(2), 179. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00179Google Scholar

Rugani, R., Cavazzana, A., Vallortigara, G., & Regolin, L. (2013). One, two, three, four, or is there something more? Numerical discrimination in day-old domestic chicks. Animimal Cognition, 16, 557–564. doi: 10.1007/s10071-012-0593-8Google Scholar

Rugani, R., Rosa-Salva, O., & Regolin, L. (2014). Lateralized mechanisms for encoding of object. Behavioral evidence from an animal model: The domestic chick (Gallus gallus). Frontiers of Comparative Psychology, 5, 150. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00150Google Scholar

Rugani, R., Vallortigara, G., Priftis, K., & Regolin, L. (2015a). Number-space mapping in the newborn chick resembles humans’ mental number line. Science, 347, 534–536. doi: 10.1126/science.aaa1379Google Scholar

Rugani, R., Vallortigara, G., Priftis, K., & Regolin, L. (2015b). Comments to number-space mapping in the newborn chick resembles humans’ mental number line. Science, 348, 1438.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Rugani, R., Vallortigara, G., & Regolin, L. (2015c). At the root of the left-right asymmetries in spatial numerical processing: From domestic chicks to human subjects. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 27(4), 388–399. doi: 10.1080/20445911.2014.941846Google Scholar

Rugani, R., Vallortigara, G., & Regolin, L. (2016). Mapping number to space in the two hemispheres of the avian brain. Neurobiology of Learning and Memory, 133, 13–18. doi: 10.1016/j.nlm.2016.05.010Google Scholar

Rugani, R., Castiello, U., Priftis, K., Spoto, A., & Sartori, L. (2017). What is a number? The interplay between number and continuous magnitudes. Behavioural and Brain Sciences, 40(e187), 39–40. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X16002259Google Scholar

Scarf, D., Hayne, H., & Colombo, M. (2011). Pigeons on par with primates in numerical competence. Science, 334, 1664. doi: 10.1126/science.1213357Google Scholar

Shaki, S. & Fischer, M. (2008). Reading space into numbers: A cross-linguistic comparison of the SNARC effect. Cognition, 108(2), 590–599. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2008.04.001Google Scholar

Shaki, S., Fischer, M. H., & Petrusic, W. M. (2009). Reading habits for both words and numbers contribute to the SNARC effect. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16(2), 328–331. doi: 10.3758/PBR.16.2.328Google Scholar

Starr, A., Libertus, M. E., & Brannon, E. M. (2013). Number sense in infancy predicts mathematical abilities in childhood. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 110, 18116–18120. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1302751110Google Scholar

Theiss, M. P. H., Hellmann, B., & Güntürkün, O. (2003). The architecture of an inhibitory sidepath within the avian tectofugal system. NeuroReport, 14, 879–882.Google Scholar

Tommasi, L. & Vallortigara, G. (2001). Encoding of geometric and landmark information in the left and right hemisphere of the avian brain. Behavioural Neuroscience, 115, 602–613. doi: 10.1037/0735-7044.115.3.602Google Scholar

Tommasi, L., Gagliardo, A., Andrew, R. J., & Vallortigara, G. (2003). Separate processing mechanisms for encoding of geometric and landmark information in the avian hippocampus. European Journal of Neuroscience, 17, 1695–1702.Google Scholar

Triki, Z. & Bshary, R. (2018). Cleaner fish Labroides dimidiatus discriminate numbers but fail a mental number line test. Animal Cognition, 21, 99–107.Google Scholar

Vallortigara, G. (2012). Core knowledge of object, number, and geometry: A comparative and neural approach. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 29, 213–236. doi: 10.1080/02643294.2012.654772Google Scholar

Vallortigara, G., Chiandetti, C., Sovrano, V. A., Rugani, R., & Regolin, L. (2010a). Animal Cognition. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 1, 882–893. doi: 10.1002/wcs.75Google Scholar

Weidner, C., Reperant, J., Miceli, D., Haby, M., & Rio, J. P. (1985). An anatomical study of ipsilateral retinal projections in the quail using radioautographic, horseradish peroxide, fluorescence and degeneration techniques. Brain Research, 340, 99–108.Google Scholar

Zebian, S. (2005). Linkages between number concepts, spatial thinking, and directionality of writing: The SNARC effect and the reverse SNARC effect in English and Arabic monoliterates, biliterates, and illiterate Arabic speakers. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 5(1), 165–190. doi: 10.1163/1568537054068660Google Scholar

Zeier, H. J. & Karten, H. J. (1973). Connections of the anterior commissure in the pigeon (Columba livia). Journal of Comparative Neurology, 150, 201–216.Google Scholar

References

Astley, S. L. & Wasserman, E. A. (1992). Categorical discrimination and generalization in pigeons: All negative stimuli are not created equal. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 18(2), 193–207.Google Scholar

Astley, S. L. & Wasserman, E. A. (1999). Superordinate category formation in pigeons: Association with a common delay or probability of food reinforcement makes perceptually dissimilar stimuli functionally equivalent. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 25(4), 415–432. https://doi.org/10.1037/0097-7403.25.4.415 Google Scholar

Astley, Suzette L., Peissig, Jessie J., & Wasserman, Edward A. (2001). Superordinate categorization via learned stimulus equivalence: Quantity of reinforcement, hedonic value, and the nature of the mediator. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 27(3), 252–268. https://doi.org/10.1037/0097-7403.27.3.252 Google Scholar

Aust, U. & Huber, L. (2001). The role of item- and category-specific information in the discrimination of people versus nonpeople images by pigeons. Animal Learning and Behavior, 29(2), 107–119.Google Scholar

Aust, U. & Huber, L. (2002). Target-defining features in a “people-present/people-absent” discrimination task by pigeons. Animal Learning and Behavior, 30(2), 165–176.Google Scholar

Aust, U. & Huber, L. (2003). Elemental versus configural perception in a people-present/people-absent discrimination task by pigeons. Learning and Behavior, 31(3), 213–224.Google Scholar

Aust, U. & Huber, L. (2010). The role of skin-related information in pigeons’ categorization and recognition of humans in pictures. [Article]. Vision Research, 50(19), 1941–1948. doi: 10.1016/j.visres.2010.07.012Google Scholar

Azizi, A. H., Pusch, R., Koenen, C., Klatt, S., Broker, F., Thiele, S., … Cheng, S. (2019). Emerging category representation in the visual forebrain hierarchy of pigeons (Columba livia). [Article]. Behavioural Brain Research, 356, 423–434. doi: 10.1016/j.bbr.2018.05.014Google Scholar

Belguermi, A., Bovet, D., Pascal, A., Prévot-Julliard, A.-C., Jalme, M. S., Rat-Fischer, L., & Leboucher, G. (2011). Pigeons discriminate between human feeders. Animal Cognition, 14(6), 909–914. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10071-011-0420-7 Google Scholar

Bhatt, R. S., Wasserman, E. A., Reynolds, W. F., & Knauss, K. S. (1988). Conceptual behavior in pigeons: Categorization of both familiar and novel examples from four classes of natural and artifical stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 14(3), 219–234.Google Scholar

Castro, L. & Wasserman, E. A. (2017). Feature predictiveness and selective attention in pigeons’ categorization learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Learning and Cognition, 43(3), 231–242. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/xan0000146 Google Scholar

Cerella, J. (1979). Visual classes and natural categories in the pigeon. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 5(1), 68–77.Google Scholar

Cook, R. G., Levison, D. G., Gillet, S. R., & Blaisdell, A. P. (2005). Capacity and limits of associative memory in pigeons. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 12(2), 350–358.Google Scholar

Cook, R. G., Wright, A. A., & Drachman, E. E. (2013). Categorization of birds, mammals, and chimeras by pigeons. Behavioural Processes, 93, 98–110. doi: 10.1016/j.beproc.2012.11.006Google Scholar

Dittrich, L., Adam, R., Unver, E., & Güntürkün, O. (2010). Pigeons identify individual humans but show no sign of recognizing them in photographs. Behavioural Processes, 83(1), 82–89. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2009.10.006 Google Scholar

Ellis, A. E. & Oakes, L. M. (2006). Infants flexibly use different dimensions to categorize objects. Developmental Psychology, 42(6), 1000–1011. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.42.6.1000 Google Scholar

Frank, A. J. & Wasserman, E. A. (2005). Associative symmetry in the pigeon after successive matching‐to‐sample training. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 84, 147–165. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.2005.115-04 Google Scholar

Ghosh, N., Lea, S. E. G., & Noury, M. (2004). Transfer to intermediate forms following concept discrimination by pigeons: Chimeras and morphs. Journal of Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 82(2), 125–141.Google Scholar

Gibson, B. M., Wasserman, E. A., Gosselin, F., & Schyns, P. G. (2005). Applying Bubbles to localize features that control pigeons’ visual discrimination behavior. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 31(3), 376–382.Google Scholar

Goto, K., Lea, S. E. G., Wills, A. J., & Milton, F. (2011). Interpreting the effects of image manipulation on picture perception in pigeons (Columba livia) and humans (Homo sapiens). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 125(1), 48–60. doi: 10.1037/a0020791 10.1037/a0020791.supp (Supplemental)Google Scholar

Herrnstein, R. J. & de Villiers, P. A. (1980). Fish as Natural Category for People and Pigeons. In Bower, G. H. (Ed.), The Psychology of Learning and Motivation: Advances in Research and Theory Vol. 14, (59–95), New York: Academic Press. (Reprinted from: IN FILE).Google Scholar

Herrnstein, R. J. & Loveland, D. H. (1964). Complex visual concept in the pigeon. Science, 146(3643), 549–551.Google Scholar

Herrnstein, R. J., Loveland, D. H., & Cable, C. (1976). Natural concepts in pigeons. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 2(4), 285–302.Google Scholar

Huber, L. & Lenz, R. (1993). A test of the linear feature model of polymorphous concept discrimination with pigeons. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 46B(1), 1–18.Google Scholar

Huber, L. & Lenz, R. (1996). Categorization of prototypical stimulus classes by pigeons. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49B (2), 111–133.Google Scholar

Huber, L., Troje, N. F., Loidolt, M., Aust, U., & Grass, D. (2000). Natural categorization through multiple feature learning in pigeons. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 53B(4), 341–357.Google Scholar

Jitsumori, M. (1993). Category discrimination of artificial polymorphous stimuli based on feature learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 19(3), 244–254.Google Scholar

Jitsumori, M. (1996). A prototype effect and categorization of artificial polymorphous stimuli in pigeons. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 22(4), 405–419.Google Scholar

Jitsumori, M., Ohkita, M., & Ushitani, T. (2011). The learning of basic-level categories by pigeons: The prototype effect, attention, and effects of categorization. Learning & Behavior, 39(3), 271–287. doi: 10.3758/s13420-011-0028-4Google Scholar

Johnson, K. E. & Mervis, C. B. (1997). Effects of varying levels of expertise on the basic level of categorization. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 126(3), 248–277.Google Scholar

Keller, F. S. & Schoenfeld, W. N. (1950). Principles of Psychology: A Systematic Text in the Science of Behavior. New York Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc.Google Scholar

Kirkpatrick, K., Bilton, T., Hansen, B. C., & Loschky, L. C. (2014). Scene gist categorization by pigeons. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Learning and Cognition, 40(2), 162–177. doi: 10.1037/xan0000014Google Scholar

Lazareva, O. F., Freiburger, K. L., & Wasserman, E. A. (2004). Pigeons concurrently categorize photographs at both basic and superordinate levels. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 11(6), 1111–1117.Google Scholar

Lazareva, O. F., Freiburger, K. L., & Wasserman, E. A. (2006). Effects of stimulus manipulations on visual categorization in pigeons. Behavioural Processes, 72, 224–233.Google Scholar

Lazareva, O. F. & Wasserman, E. A. (2009). Effects of stimulus duration and choice delay on visual categorization in pigeons. Learning and Motivation, 40, 132–146. doi: 10.1016/j.lmot.2008.10.003Google Scholar

Lazareva, O. F., Soto, F., & Wasserman, E. A. (2010). Effect of between-category similarity on basic-level superiority in pigeons. Behavioural Processes, 85, 236–245.Google Scholar

Lazareva, O. F., & Wasserman, E. A. (2017). Categories and Concepts in Animals In Byrne, J. H. (Ed.), Learning and Memory: A Comprehensive Reference (2nd ed.) (pp. 111–139). Oxford: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Lea, S. E. G. (1984). In what Sense Do Pigeons Learn Concepts? In Roitblat, H. L., Bever, T. G., & Terrace, H. S. (Eds.), Animal Cognition (pp. 263–277). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. (Reprinted from: IN FILE).Google Scholar

Lea, S. E. G., Poser-Richet, V., & Meier, C. (2015). Pigeons can learn to make visual category discriminations using either low or high spatial frequency information. Behavioural Processes, 112, 81–87. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2014.11.012 Google Scholar

Lea, S. E. G., Pothos, E. M., Wills, A. J., Leaver, L. A., Ryan, C. M. E., & Meier, C. (2018). Multiple feature use in pigeons’ category discrimination: The influence of stimulus set structure and the salience of stimulus differences. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Animal Learning and Cognition, 44(2), 114–127. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/xan0000169 Google Scholar

Lubow, R. E. (1974). High-order concept formation in the pigeon. Journal of Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 21(3), 475–483.Google Scholar

Makino, H. & Jitsumori, M. (2007). Discrimination of artificial categories structured by family resemblances: A comparative study in people (Homo sapiens) and pigeons (Columba livia). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 121(1), 22–33. doi: 10.1037/0735-7036.121.1.22Google Scholar

Mareschal, D., Quinn, P. C., & Lea, S. E. G. (2010). The Making of Human Concepts, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Markman, E. M. (1989). Categorization and Naming in Children: Problems of Induction. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar

Nicholls, E., Ryan, C. M. E., Bryant, C. M. L., & Lea, S. E. G. (2011). Labeling and family resemblance in the discrimination of polymorphous categories by pigeons. Animal Cognition, 14(1), 21–34. doi: 10.1007/s10071-010-0339-4Google Scholar

Poole, J. & Lander, D. G. (1971). The pigeon’s concept of pigeon. Psychonomic Science, 25(3), 157–158.Google Scholar

Premack, D. (1976). Intelligence in Ape and Man. Hillsdale, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar

Quinn, P. C. & Eimas, P. D. (1998). Evidence for a global categorical representation of humans by young infants. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 69(3), 151–174.Google Scholar

Roberts, W. A. & Mazmanian, D. S. (1988). Concept learning at different levels of abstraction by pigeons, monkeys, and people. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 14(3), 247–260.Google Scholar

Rosch, E. & Mervis, C. B. (1975). Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology, 7(4), 573–605.Google Scholar

Soto, F. A. & Wasserman, E. A. (2010). Error-driven learning in visual categorization and object recognition: A common-elements model. Psychological Review, 117(2), 349–381. doi: 10.1037/a0018695Google Scholar

Soto, F. A. & Wasserman, E. A. (2012). Visual object categorization in birds and primates: Integrating behavioral, neurobiological, and computational evidence within a ‘general process’ framework. Cognitive, Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience, 12(1), 220–240. doi: 10.3758/s13415-011-0070-xGoogle Scholar

Stephan, C., Wilkinson, A., & Huber, L. (2012). Have we met before? Pigeons recognise familiar human faces. [Article]. Avian Biology Research, 5(2), 75–80. doi: 10.3184/175815512x13350970204867Google Scholar

Tanaka, J. W. & Taylor, M. (1991). Object categories and expertise: Is the basic level in the eye of the beholder? Cognitive Psychology, 23(3), 457–482.Google Scholar

Urcuioli, P. J., Wasserman, E. A., & Zentall, T. R. (2014). Associative concept learning in animals: Issues and opportunities. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 101(1), 165–170. doi: 10.1002/jeab.62Google Scholar

Wasserman, E. A. (2016). Conceptualization in pigeons: The evolution of a paradigm. Behavioural Processes, 123, 4–14. doi: 10.1016/j.beproc.2015.09.010Google Scholar

Wasserman, E. A., Kiedinger, R. E., & Bhatt, R. S. (1988). Conceptual behavior in pigeons: Categories, subcategories, and pseudocategories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 14(3), 235–246.Google Scholar

Wasserman, E. A., DeVolder, C. L., & Coppage, D. J. (1992). Nonsimilarity-based conceptualization in pigeons via secondary or mediated generalization. Psychological Science, 3(6), 374–378.Google Scholar

Wasserman, E. A., Brooks, D. I., & McMurray, B. (2015). Pigeons acquire multiple categories in parallel via associative learning: A parallel to human word learning? Cognition, 136, 99–122. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2014.11.020Google Scholar

Yamazaki, Y., Aust, U., Huber, L., Hausmann, M., & Güntürkün, O. (2007). Lateralized cognition: Asymmetrical and complementary strategies of pigeons during discrimination of the “human concept.” Cognition, 104(2), 315–344. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2006.07.004Google Scholar

Zentall, T. R., Wasserman, E. A., Lazareva, O. F., Thompson, R. K. R., & Rattermann, M. J. (2008). Concept learning in animals. Comparative Cognition and Behavior Reviews, 3, 13–45.Google Scholar

Zentall, T. R., Wasserman, E. A., & Urcuioli, P. J. (2014). Associative concept learning in animals. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 101(1), 130–151. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jeab.55 Google Scholar

Book contents

Part V - Numerical and Quantitative Abilities

Summary

Access options

References

References

References

References

References

Save book to Kindle

Save book to Dropbox

Save book to Google Drive