cavernio ([info]cavernio) wrote,
@ 2006-09-26 22:16:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Current music:The Cynic Project - Formant

Pigeon vs. Human - round 1
I ran across something while researching today that is vastly more amusing than what I'm actually searching for.

From the abstract of: (in case you're bored and actually care to read the article, I've not bothered to myself)
Recognition by Humans and Pigeons of Novel Views of 3-D Objects and Their Photographs. Friedman, Alinda; Spetch, Marcia L.; Ferrey, Anne; Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, Vol 134(2), May 2005. pp. 149-162. [Original Journal Article]
Cited References (40)

"Humans and pigeons were trained to discriminate between 2 views of actual 3-D objects or their photographs. They were tested on novel views that were either within the closest rotational distance between the training views (interpolated) or outside of that range (extrapolated). When training views were 60° apart, pigeons, but not humans, recognized novel views of actual objects better than their pictures."

Its not actually that funny, especially when you think about possible reasons why, but its just awesome that pigeons beat us at a task involving 'higher order processing'.


(Post a new comment)

Bad Pool
(Anonymous)
2006-09-27 03:15 pm UTC (link)
I'm betting those test pigeons don't fly into windows, and those humans do walk through screen doors. :-)

(Reply to this)

[info]cavernio
2006-09-27 03:54 pm UTC (link)
(previous message was Jordan, in case anyone couldn't tell)

(Reply to this)
amusing indeed
(Anonymous)
2006-10-15 10:59 pm UTC (link)
I can't believe someone actually quoted that study in a non-academic context.

And from personal experience running the experiment in question, I can tell you that although pigeons may be good at recognizing novel views of objects, they are very very dumb in many other regards.

- Anne

(Reply to this)(Thread)
Re: amusing indeed
[info]cavernio
2006-10-16 12:01 am UTC (link)
I meant no disrespect in regards to the quality of the study or to the findings, nor am I under the impression that pigeons are massively intelligent and are planning on taking over the world (or are they?) and I'm feeling rather sheepish for explicitly saying that I didn't actually read the study. However, I still find that 3rd sentence amusing. Perhaps one of my friends has taken the time to read the study in a fit of procrastination or boredom, in which case, you'll be getting readership outside of the zoological and psychological communities. Bonus!

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)
Re: amusing indeed
(Anonymous)
2006-10-25 03:38 pm UTC (link)
No offense taken - I probably wouldn't read it myself if I came across it randomly. (Don't tell my supervisor!)

Oh, the things you find when Googling yourself...

If one of your friends does read it, it will probably double our non-cognitive-psych readership.

- Anne

(annabeth.diaryland.com)

(Reply to this)(Parent)

Create an Account
Forgot your login?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…