1. A behaviorist perspective on comparative cognition
Can Animals think?
A behaviorist perspective on comparative cognition

2. Comparative Cognition
Evolutionary approach:
cognitive mechanisms evolve in response to selective pressures peculiar to each species’ ecology, physiology and morphology
Thus cognitive processes differ across species
Comparative cognition:
compare abilities across species
Analyze performance of different species on same set of tasks
Focus on species-specific mechanisms and strategies that underlie problem- solving performance
Better to understand how different animals problem solve rather than
Try to determine which animal is “smarter”
Must use a set of tasks, not a single task

3. What behaviors to study?
Relearning
Altering habits and adapting to change by switching to different solution routine
Behavioral flexibility
Neophilia
Exploration strategies
Attention
Motivation
Affordance learning
Physiological constraints

4. Cognitive Ethology!
Cognitive ethology assumes that animals are capable of conscious thought and intentionality
Normally traits given just to humans
Assumption is data driven:
Animal behavior shows complexity, flexibility and cleverness
Conscious intent is demonstrated by these behaviors

5. Experimental Psychology
Experimental psychologists use comparative cognition in more limited way
“objective evidence cannot give a demonstration either of the existence or the nonexistence of consciousness, thus consciousness is precisely that which cannot be perceived objectively.”
Comparative cognition = theoretical constructs and models used to explain aspects of behavior that cannot be readily characterized in terms of simple S-R mechanisms

6. What is the problem?
When causal inferences about “rich mental life” of an animal is made, one may be projecting own thoughts/emotions/intentions on that animal
Anthropomorphism = projecting human qualities onto animals
Remember that cognitive mechanisms involving internal representations are theoretical constructs inferred from the behavior of organisms
This is true for both humans AND animals!
We must be careful when making causal inferences and tying them to internal states when all we have is behavior as our data

7. Morgan’s Canon:
Accept the lowest level of intentional explanation that works
Natural selection: what matters is that the animal achieves goals such as finding food, mates, and safety.
Using Morgan’s canon to choose among alternatives assumes that natural selection has always produced the lowest level intentional system that can do the job.
But doesn’t answer the question of how the animal does this!

8. Why is this relevant?
Functional concerns of behavioral ecology and ethology often lead to mechanistic questions -- which are the realm of cognition.
Cognitive ethologists are frequently concerned with the diversity of solutions that living organisms have found for common problems.
Emphasize broad taxonomic comparisons
Do not focus on a few select representatives of limited taxa (we hope).
Looking for general principles of behavior or cognition.

9. Behavioral ecology can inform questions of cognition
Optimal Foraging Theory: maximize rate of energy intake and fitness.
Example: Woodpecker takes longer on some trees than on others when foraging.
Assume: adaptive, optimal, maximizing energy, maximizing fitness.
Function: avoid depleted food, avoid predation, stay close to nest.
Mechanism: how know depleted, what info tells bird to change behavior, how does it know where its nest is?
Measure: distances between trees, prey repletion rates, prey energy, etc.

10. What about memory? Do animals show evidence of “memory”
If so, do they show different KINDS of memory
How are different animals’ memory similar or different:
Across species
In comparison to human memory
How is an animal’s memory altered?
What factors impact the formation of memory?
What kinds of things are remembered?,
How can animal memory be explained in terms of function?

11. Compare to Human memory: Kinds of Memory
Reference: Information that is procedural and long term.
How to dial phone
Working: event specific and short term.
What number to dial.

12. Matching to Sample and Language
Is metacognition or metalinguistic awareness necessary?

13. Equivalence Class
Three defining relations for determining equivalence:
Reflexivity:
generalized identity matching
Matching novel stimulus to itself
Symmetry
Functional reversability of conditional relation
If A then B; if B then A
Occurs without direct reinforcement
Transitivity
Three stimuli: A, B, C
A = B
A = C
Therefore, B = C

14. Equivalence Class Stimulus equivalence defined:
Symbol and referents form functionally substitutable elements
Relation between symbol and referent not unidirectional (reflexivity and symmetry)
Deal with verbal or symbolic activity
Picture of a dog = word dog = picture of a dog
Many animals show stimulus equivalence:
Monkeys, Chimps and bonobos
Parrots and Corvids
Dogs
Pigeons to lesser degree
Sea animals: Seals, sea lions, orcas, dolphinsw
What cognitive abilities are necessary for this?

15. How test “concept formation”
Problem solving strategy that is based on relations between stimuli
NOT strategy based on particular aspects of individual problems
Start with # of exemplars then applied to novel problems
Use matching to sample
Shown an exemplar
Pick the matching concept from stimulus array
Sameness-different-ness

16. Testing animals for Concepts
Several important criteria for testing across species:
Exclusion effect: novel vs. familiar
Correct answer = novel stimulus
Are you shaping “choose the new” or “choose the concept”?
Effects of novelty:
Can be disruptive
Is it the stimulus or the novelty that the animal is responding to?
Using large pool of stimuli helps reduce this effect

17. Pigeons: Maki and Hegvik (1980) directed forgetting
Assume that updating of memory is critical
Human data suggest that this depends on mnemonics
Directed forgetting = cueing what to forget
Do animals remember differently when directed to forget?
Use MTS task again
Now add a delay: DMTS

18. Procedure for Testing Pigeons:
6 pigeons in a 3 key conditioning chamber:
Center key lights up white; peck it
Peck would then result in one of two equally probable events:
2 sec access to grain OR
2 sec with no stimuli presented
Used different delays: 6-15 seconds
After the delay: 2 keys light up: Red and Green
Peck to Red reinforced if trial begun with NO food but a stimulus
Peck to Green reinforced if trial had begun with NO stimulus presented
Had to remember first event: if correct, got food; if incorrect, got TO

19. Training Training: Group “light”: Group “dark”:
comparison stimuli omitted for trials containing the house light during delay
Cue to remember : dark
Cue to forget: light on
Group “dark”:
comparison stimuli omitted for trials containing NO house light during delay
Cue to remember: Light
Cue to forget: Dark
Ran probe tests on last 20 days: Total of 40 Forgetting-cue and 40 Remember cue probe trials

20. Results for early trials with the Pigeons
Obtained Mean percentages correct for F (forget) cue and R (remember) cues, dark and light, and short or long delays
Results:
Decrease in matching accuracy in Forgetting-cue probe trials relative to Remember-cue trials for both Part A and Part B training
Remembered less when cued to forget!
Remember-cue trials were more accurate than Forget-cue, particularly when Forget-cue was house light and not darkness

21. Experiment 2
Examined effects of cuing and the predicted time course of cueing
Also examine feature positive vs. feature negative effect
Method:
6 birds again
Trained on basic task with no delay
Trained to flashing vs. steady house light
Trained to dark vs. light
Added probe trials

22. Results of Experiment 2 with Pigeons
Again, performance during house light as cue for forgetting was worse compared to house light as cue to remember
Matching following forget cues was less accurate than following remember cues
Delay decreased performance
Presence of House light as forgetting cue was disruptive! (remember feature positive effect….how does this tie in?)

23. Conclusions:
Cuing effects can vary with nature of to-be-remembered sample (remember the feature negative effect!).
Did NOT support the rehearsal hypothesis, but appears pigeons “did something else” when prompted to forget
Is this similar or different to humans?
Suggests must engage in mediating behaviors to maintain remembering

24. DTMS and human children
12 children in 3 groups (MA mos)
Normally developing preschoolers
Cognitively impaired with near typical language
Cognitively impaired with no language development
Stimuli:
4 conditional discriminations:
If A then B
If D then E
If A then C
If D then F
Matching made up animal like figures using MTS

25. DTMS and human children
Training: Presented A or D as sample, B,E or C,F as comparisons
3 stimuli presented on paper
Sample at top, two choices at bottom
Test: equivalence indicated by matching B and C or E and F
B or E as sample with C and F as comparisons
C and F as sample with E and B as comparisons
Each child taught and tested individually
Reward = short activity or treat
Did use visual prompting
Obtained interobserver agreement and reliability estimates

26. Language and kids: Results
Looked at group and individual data
Data graphed as percentages of unprompted correct responses in blocks of 10 consecutive trials
Performance varied across 3 groups:
Typical and children with cognitive impairments (CI) but with language: required fewer trials to mastery
About 100 for typical; 225 for CI/language; 500 for CI/no language

27. Language and kids: Results
Equivalence test: looked at Individual data
Did track # of no responses made by child during each block of 10 trials: did not differ x group
% of correct responding = # correct responses/total number of responses in block
Results showed differences by cognitive ability AND language ability:
Normal group: 84.5% correct
CI/language: 78.25%
CI/no language: 44.5%- very close to chance
Typical and CI/language children improved across the equivalence testing phase:
Normal: 77.5 to 95.5
CI/language: to 88%
CI/no language: and 39.25%

28. Language and kids: Results
Data suggest that language/symbol use may be necessary for development of stimulus equivalence in young children
Not that couldn’t learn discriminations
Couldn’t learn conditional discriminations under these conditions
Literature shows can learn with overtraining
Seems to be lack of symmetrical responding rather than inability to show transitivity
Slower to learn overall
May just take longer

29. Animals can categorize in amazing ways!

30. Conclusions
Which comes first: equivalence class learning or symbol use?
Animal data suggest equivalence class
Pigeon data: could do task, but not aware
Sea lion data: better transitivity and symbol use
Higher mammals, primates, dogs show transitivity and symbol use
Is language learned or innate?
Is it a process that requires multiple inputs from genetics, environment
Synergistic interactions between nature and nurture? Can’t have language with equivalence class
But is LANGUAGE required to discriminate complex stimuli?
Answer seems to be, “depends on the type of complex stimuli”!