Abstract
In a two-dimensional drawing, when the narrow edge of a bar appears to touch the edge of a large rectangle, humans overestimate the length of the bar (Kanizsa, 1979). Kanizsa has suggested that this illusion occurs because humans perceive the bar as continuing behind the rectangle and complete the “occluded” portion of the bar. Rhesus monkeys and pigeons were trained to classify black target bars with a variety of lengths as “long” or “short.” In training, the bar was always located at the same distance from a gray box. After learning this discrimination, the subjects were tested on novel stimuli, in which the bar was located at three new locations. Monkeys showed a consistent response bias for “long” when the bar touched the box, but pigeons did not. Monkeys appear to have completed the “occluded” part like humans, whereas pigeons failed to do so. Because this procedure does not require animals to complete the “occluded” part with any particular form, their failure suggests that pigeons do not even perceive the target bar as continuing behind the “occluding” figure. The failure of pigeons may be due to difficulty in perceiving depth from two-dimensional drawings.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Blough, D. S. (1984). Form recognition in pigeons. In H. L. Roitblat, T. G. Bever, & H. S. Terrace (Eds.),Animal cognition (pp. 277–289). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cerella, J. (1980). The pigeon’s analysis of picture.Pattern Recognition,12, 1–6.
Cerella, J. (1990). Shape constancy in the pigeon: The perspective transformations decomposed. In M. L. Commons, R. J. Herrnstein, S.M. Kosslyn, & D. B. Mumford (Eds.),Quantitative analyses of behavior (Vol. 8., pp. 145–163). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cook, R. G., &Katz, J. S. (1999). Dynamic object perception by pigeons.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,25, 194–210.
Dumas, C., &Wilkie, D. M. (1995). Object permanence in ring doves (Streptopelia risoria).Journal of Comparative Psychology,109, 142–150.
Forkman, B. (1998). Hens use occlusion to judge depth in a two-dimensional picture.Perception,27, 861–867.
Fujita, K. (1996). Linear perspective and the Ponzo illusion: A comparison between rhesus monkeys and humans.Japanese Psychological Research,38, 136–145.
Fujita, K. (1997). Perception of the Ponzo illusion by rhesus monkeys, chimpanzees, and humans: Similarity and difference in the three primate species.Perception & Psychophysics,59, 284–292.
Fujita, K., Blough, D. S., &Blough, P. M. (1991). Pigeons see the Ponzo illusion.Animal Learning & Behavior,19, 283–293.
Fujita, K., Blough, D. S., &Blough, P. M. (1993). Effects of the inclination of context lines on perception of the Ponzo illusion by pigeons.Animal Learning & Behavior,21, 29–34.
Funk, M. S. (1996). Development of object permanence in the New Zealand parakeet(Cyanoramphus auriceps).Animal Learning & Behavior,24, 375–383.
Granrud, C. E., &Yonas, A. (1984). Infants’ perception of pictorially specified interposition.Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,37, 500–511.
Grossberg, S., &Mingolla, E. (1985). Neural dynamics of form perception: Boundary completion, illusory figures, and neon color spreading.Psychological Review,92, 173–211.
Gunderson, V. M., Yonas, A., Sargent, P. L., &Grant-Webster, K. S. (1993). Infant macaque monkeys respond to pictorial depth.Psychological Science,4, 93–98.
Hodos, W. (1993). The visual capabilities of birds. In H. P. Zeigler & H.-J. Bischof (Eds.),Vision, brain, and behavior in birds (pp. 63–76). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kanizsa, G. (1979).Organization in vision: Essays on Gestalt perception. New York: Praeger.
Kanizsa, G., Renzi, P., Conte, S., Compostela, C., &Guerani, L. (1993). Amodal completion in mouse vision.Perception,22, 713–721.
Kellman, P. J., &Spelke, E. S. (1983). Perception of partly occluded objects in infancy.Cognitive Psychology,15, 483–524.
Lea, S. E. G., Slater, A. M., &Ryan, C. M. E. (1996). Perception of object unity in chicks: A comparison with the human infant.Infant Behavior & Development,19, 501–504.
Pepperberg, I. M., &Funk, M. S. (1990). Object permanence in four species of psittacine birds: An African Grey parrot(Psittacus erithacus), an Illiger mini macaw(Ara maracana), a parakeet(Melopsittacus undulatus), and a cockatiel(Nymphicus hollandicus).Animal Learning & Behavior,18, 97–108.
Plowright, C. M. S., Reid, S., &Kilian, T. (1998). Finding hidden food: Behavior on visible displacement tasks by mynahs(Gracula religiosa) and pigeons(Columba livia).Journal of Comparative Psychology,112, 13–25.
Regolin, L., &Vallortigara, G. (1995). Perception of partly occluded objects by young chicks.Perception & Psychophysics,57, 971–976.
Sato, A., Kanazawa, S., &Fujita, K. (1997). Perception of object unity in a chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes).Japanese Psychological Research,39, 191–199.
Sekuler, A. B., Lee, J. A. J., &Shettleworth, S. J. (1996). Pigeons do not complete partly occluded figures.Perception,25, 1109–1120.
Sekuler, A. B., &Palmer, S. E. (1992). Perception of partly occluded objects: A microgenetic analysis.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,121, 95–111.
Yin, C., Kellman, P. J., &Shipley, T. F. (1997). Surface completion complements boundary formation in the visual integration of partly occluded objects.Perception,26, 1459–1479.
Yonas, A., &Arterberry, M. E. (1994). Infants perceive spatial structure specified by line junctions.Perception,23, 1427–1435.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This study was supported by Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research, Ministry of Education, Science, Sports, and Culture, Japan, Nos. 08610082 and 10610072, and by the Cooperation Research Program of Primate Research Institute, Kyoto University.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Fujita, K. Perceptual completion in rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta) and pigeons (Columba livia). Perception & Psychophysics 63, 115–125 (2001). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03200507
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03200507