Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2020 Jan 17:10:3017.
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.03017. eCollection 2019.

Columban Simulation Project 2.0: Numerical Competence and Orthographic Processing in Pigeons and Primates

Affiliations
Review

Columban Simulation Project 2.0: Numerical Competence and Orthographic Processing in Pigeons and Primates

Damian Scarf et al. Front Psychol. .

Abstract

Thirty years ago Burrhus Frederic Skinner and Robert Epstein began what is known as the Columban Simulation Project. With pigeons as their subjects, they simulated a series of studies that purportedly demonstrated insight, self-recognition, and symbolic communication in chimpanzees. In each case, with the appropriate training, they demonstrated that pigeons performed in a comparable manner to chimpanzees. When discussing these studies in the context of his Null Hypothesis, Macphail paid little attention to how the pigeons and chimpanzees solved the tasks and simply assumed that successful performance on the tasks reflected a similar underlying mechanism. Here, following a similar process to the original Columban Simulation Project, we go beyond this success testing and employ the signature testing approach to assess whether pigeons and primates employ a similar mechanism on tasks that tap numerical competence and orthographic processing. Consistent with the Null Hypothesis, pigeons and primates successfully passed novel transfer tests and, critically, displayed comparable cognitive signatures. While these findings demonstrate the absence of a qualitative difference, the time taken to train pigeons on these tasks revealed a clear quantitative difference.

Keywords: Null Hypothesis; comparative cognition; counting; numerical competence; orthographic processing; reading.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
(A) Test performance of subjects. (B) Test performance of subjects as a function of the numerical distance between the test pair. (C) Response time of subjects as a function of the numerical distance between the test pair. (D) Test performance of subjects as a function of the numeric ratio between the test pair.
FIGURE 2
FIGURE 2
(A) Test performance of subjects. (B) The performance of subjects as a function of the bigram frequency of words. (C) The performance of subjects on non-words as a function of their similarity to words. (D) The performance of subjects on the transposed word test.

References

    1. Brannon E. M., Terrace H. S. (1998). Ordering of the numerosities 1 to 9 by monkeys. Science 282 746–749. 10.1126/science.282.5389.746 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Buckley P. B., Gillman C. B. (1974). Comparisons of digits and dot patterns. J. Exp. Psychol. 103 1131–1136. 10.1037/h0037361 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Chen S., Swartz K. B., Terrace H. (1997). Knowledge of the ordinal position of list items in rhesus monkeys. Psychol. Sci. 8 80–86. 10.1111/j.1467-9280.1997.tb00687.x - DOI
    1. Colombo M., Cottle A., Frost N. (2003). Degree of representation of the matching concept in pigeons (Columba livia). J. Comp. Psychol. 117 246–256. 10.1037/0735-7036.117.3.246 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Dehaene S. (2009). Reading in the Brain: The New Science of How We Read. New York, NY: Viking Penguin.