4.6 Article

'Do I know you?' Categorizing individuals on the basis of familiarity in kea (Nestor notabilis)

Journal

ROYAL SOCIETY OPEN SCIENCE
Volume 10, Issue 6, Pages -

Publisher

ROYAL SOC
DOI: 10.1098/rsos.230228

Keywords

kea; Nestor notabilis; avian cognition; conceptual familiarity; two-choice discrimination task

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Categorizing individuals based on familiarity is an adaptive strategy to deal with the complexity of social environment. In a two-choice discrimination task, a laboratory population of kea parrots were able to differentiate between familiar and unfamiliar human faces, providing novel empirical evidence on abstract categorization capacities in parrots and representational insight in kea.
Categorizing individuals on the basis of familiarity is an adaptive way of dealing with the complexity of the social environment. It requires the use of conceptual familiarity and is considered higher order learning. Although, it is common among many species, ecological need might require and facilitate individual differentiation among heterospecifics. This may be true for laboratory populations just as much as for domesticated species and those that live in urban contexts. However, with the exception of a few studies, populations of laboratory animals have generally been given less attention. The study at hand, therefore, addressed the question whether a laboratory population of kea parrots (Nestor notabilis) were able to apply the concept of familiarity to differentiate between human faces in a two-choice discrimination task on the touchscreen. The results illustrated that the laboratory population of kea were indeed able to differentiate between familiar and unfamiliar human faces in a two-choice discrimination task. The results provide novel empirical evidence on abstract categorization capacities in parrots while at the same time providing further evidence of representational insight in kea.

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