How do goats “read” 2D-images of familiar and unfamiliar conspecifics?
To study individual recognition in animals, discrimination tasks are often conducted by presenting 2D images of real conspecifics. However, animals may discriminate the images merely as visual stimulus combinations without establishing referential relationships to the individuals depicted. In the cu...
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Frontiers Media S.A.
2023-05-01
|
| Series: | Frontiers in Psychology |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1089566/full |
| _version_ | 1827944114803441664 |
|---|---|
| author | Jan Langbein Mauricio Moreno-Zambrano Katrin Siebert |
| author_facet | Jan Langbein Mauricio Moreno-Zambrano Katrin Siebert |
| author_sort | Jan Langbein |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | To study individual recognition in animals, discrimination tasks are often conducted by presenting 2D images of real conspecifics. However, animals may discriminate the images merely as visual stimulus combinations without establishing referential relationships to the individuals depicted. In the current study, we investigated whether goats are able to discriminate photos of familiar and unfamiliar conspecifics, whether they not only process the photos as visual stimuli, but also understand them as virtual copies of real conspecifics and whether they grasp the concept of familiarity. Using a computer-controlled learning device, in three tests, goats of two experimental groups (A and B) had to discriminate portrait (Te1), profile (Te2) or headless body photos (Te3) of conspecifics. Tests were presented as 4-choice tasks, with one photo from Group A (rewarded) plus three photos from Group B (distractors). That is, the rewarded photo was familiar to Group A, but unfamiliar to Group B. Finally, in a reversal test (Te4) we reversed this principle. The goats learned the discriminations in Te1 to Te3 within two (Te1 and Te2) and three training days (Te3), respectively, and they needed between 91 [CL (66, 126)] and 174 [CL (126, 241)] trials to reach the learning criterion, with no statistically significant differences between the groups. In Te4, in contrast, the animals took 403 [Group A; CL (291, 557)] and 385 [Group B; CL (286, 519)] trials, respectively, to learn the task. The lack of spontaneous preferences for the photo of the familiar conspecific in the pretests of Te1 to Te3 in Group A, as well as the lack of differences in the number of trials to learn the discriminations between both groups, do not at first glance suggest that the goats established a correspondence between real conspecifics and their 2D representations. However, the higher number of trials in Te4 suggests that both groups formed the learning rule of choosing either the known (Group A) or the unknown goat (Group B) over the course of Te1 to Te3 and then failed after the rule was reversed, providing evidence that goats can associate 2D photos of conspecifics with real animals. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-13T10:25:34Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-2ef0c05d347344b091bdb9e07563d5b2 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1664-1078 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-13T10:25:34Z |
| publishDate | 2023-05-01 |
| publisher | Frontiers Media S.A. |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Frontiers in Psychology |
| spelling | doaj.art-2ef0c05d347344b091bdb9e07563d5b22023-05-19T09:10:21ZengFrontiers Media S.A.Frontiers in Psychology1664-10782023-05-011410.3389/fpsyg.2023.10895661089566How do goats “read” 2D-images of familiar and unfamiliar conspecifics?Jan Langbein0Mauricio Moreno-Zambrano1Katrin Siebert2Research Institute for Farm Animal Biology, Institute of Behavioural Physiology, Dummerstorf, GermanyResearch Institute for Farm Animal Biology, Institute of Genetics and Biometry, Dummerstorf, GermanyResearch Institute for Farm Animal Biology, Institute of Behavioural Physiology, Dummerstorf, GermanyTo study individual recognition in animals, discrimination tasks are often conducted by presenting 2D images of real conspecifics. However, animals may discriminate the images merely as visual stimulus combinations without establishing referential relationships to the individuals depicted. In the current study, we investigated whether goats are able to discriminate photos of familiar and unfamiliar conspecifics, whether they not only process the photos as visual stimuli, but also understand them as virtual copies of real conspecifics and whether they grasp the concept of familiarity. Using a computer-controlled learning device, in three tests, goats of two experimental groups (A and B) had to discriminate portrait (Te1), profile (Te2) or headless body photos (Te3) of conspecifics. Tests were presented as 4-choice tasks, with one photo from Group A (rewarded) plus three photos from Group B (distractors). That is, the rewarded photo was familiar to Group A, but unfamiliar to Group B. Finally, in a reversal test (Te4) we reversed this principle. The goats learned the discriminations in Te1 to Te3 within two (Te1 and Te2) and three training days (Te3), respectively, and they needed between 91 [CL (66, 126)] and 174 [CL (126, 241)] trials to reach the learning criterion, with no statistically significant differences between the groups. In Te4, in contrast, the animals took 403 [Group A; CL (291, 557)] and 385 [Group B; CL (286, 519)] trials, respectively, to learn the task. The lack of spontaneous preferences for the photo of the familiar conspecific in the pretests of Te1 to Te3 in Group A, as well as the lack of differences in the number of trials to learn the discriminations between both groups, do not at first glance suggest that the goats established a correspondence between real conspecifics and their 2D representations. However, the higher number of trials in Te4 suggests that both groups formed the learning rule of choosing either the known (Group A) or the unknown goat (Group B) over the course of Te1 to Te3 and then failed after the rule was reversed, providing evidence that goats can associate 2D photos of conspecifics with real animals.https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1089566/fulldomestic ungulatesvisual discriminationreversal learningface recognitionindividual recognition |
| spellingShingle | Jan Langbein Mauricio Moreno-Zambrano Katrin Siebert How do goats “read” 2D-images of familiar and unfamiliar conspecifics? Frontiers in Psychology domestic ungulates visual discrimination reversal learning face recognition individual recognition |
| title | How do goats “read” 2D-images of familiar and unfamiliar conspecifics? |
| title_full | How do goats “read” 2D-images of familiar and unfamiliar conspecifics? |
| title_fullStr | How do goats “read” 2D-images of familiar and unfamiliar conspecifics? |
| title_full_unstemmed | How do goats “read” 2D-images of familiar and unfamiliar conspecifics? |
| title_short | How do goats “read” 2D-images of familiar and unfamiliar conspecifics? |
| title_sort | how do goats read 2d images of familiar and unfamiliar conspecifics |
| topic | domestic ungulates visual discrimination reversal learning face recognition individual recognition |
| url | https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1089566/full |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT janlangbein howdogoatsread2dimagesoffamiliarandunfamiliarconspecifics AT mauriciomorenozambrano howdogoatsread2dimagesoffamiliarandunfamiliarconspecifics AT katrinsiebert howdogoatsread2dimagesoffamiliarandunfamiliarconspecifics |