4.6 Article

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

Journal

Publisher

ROYAL SOC
DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2012.0096

Keywords

artificial grammar learning; formal language theory; pattern learning; visual stimuli; simultaneous presentation; comparative research

Categories

Funding

  1. ERC Advanced Grant SOMACCA

Ask authors/readers for more resources

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.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available