103_22_full

103_22_full - PSYC 103 Winter 2010 Lecture 22 Social...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: PSYC 103 Winter 2010 Lecture 22 Social Learning 2 Examples of bird song 10 kHz Starling song 1 sec motif Early studies on song development: •  birds isolated when young produce abnormal songs •  young, but not sexually mature birds can learn a song from a tutor Songbirds require exposure to species-typical song to learn it Song acquisition varies between & within species Creativity in the song learning process: 1.  Song learning is not memorization. Birds do not simply copy the tutor song. •  •  •  Imitation: some parts of the song are copied from the tutor Improvisation: some syllables are variations on a theme Invention: some are wholly novel 3.  Some syllable repertoires are overproduced. During the crystallization phase only a small number of learned syllables are retained in the adult song. There is an overproduction of new syllables and later attrition. Evidence suggests that social interactions play a very important role in song learning. Social Experience and Song Development An innate preference for species-specific songs? Are differences in dialect genetic or learned? Vocal learning is rare ~300 spp. of Mammals –  Primate species (Homo sapiens) –  Cetaceans (Whales and Dolphins) –  Bats (2 species) More 5000 spp of birds –  Parrots (~350 spp) – Hummingbirds (300 spp) – Ocines (Passeriformes sub-order : ~4500 spp) Fig. 1. Timelines for speech development in infants and song development in birds Kuhl, Patricia K. (2003) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 100, 9645-9646 Mirror Neurons Mirror Neurons ~ 20% of neurons in F5 show some version of this property ~ 7% show “strong” correspondences Birds have “mirror” neurons! Knowledge Attribution: False belief test Theory of mind The attribution of mental states to others. Do animals possess a theory of mind? (Premack & Woodruff, 1978) Deception Woodruff & Premack (1979) - Chimps observed a lab assistant hide food under 1 of 2 pots. Chimp could not reach food – had to direct a trainer to food: - Trainer 1 - cooperative, gave food to chimp. Chimp would direct this trainer to correct pot - Trainer 2 - competitive, eat food if directed to it. Chimp would direct this trainer to incorrect pot - Consistent with the idea that chimps have a theory of mind But, can also be explained by conventional principles of discrimination learning (Mitchell & Anderson, 1997) 17 Theory of mind Deception – naturalistic studies Byrne & Whiten (1985, 1987) -  Observed amongst a troop of baboons a strong adolescent, Melton, antagonize a youngster -  Youngster screamed – remainder of troop moved towards Melton -  Melton engaged in behavior typically shown when a predator approaches (there was no predator) -  Byrne & Whiten concluded that Melton was deceiving his troop to avoid punishment Difficult to evaluate the claim: (1) Perhaps Melton saw something that looked like a predator (2) Perhaps this behavior (by chance) has prevented punishment in the past (3) Do not know the prior experiences of the animals 18 Theory of mind Knowledge attribution Povinelli, Nelson & Boysen (1990) - Chimpanzees had to choose 1 of 4 cups - Food was hidden under cup 1 - Trainer 1: “The knower” was seen to be in room when food was hidden, pointed at cup 1 - Trainer 2: “The guesser” was seen to be out of room when food was hidden, pointed at cup 2 - Eventually, chimps came to chose cup 1. - Did they know what the trainers knew? Not necessarily, the problem can be conceived as a simple discrimination 19 Theory of mind Knowledge attribution A sketch of the test environment in which a dominant and subordinate chimpanzee were able to watch a trainer place food on the subordinate’s side of one of the opaque barriers (adapted from Tomasello et al., 2003a). Self recognition Self-recognition How do animals interact with themselves via a mirror? -  Povinelli et al. (1997): Regions of chimpanzees’ faces marked with a dye Adapted from Povinelli et al., 1997. Chimps touched these regions more than control regions, but only when in front of a mirror Not necessarily self-recognition, perhaps information about one’s own body Anderson & Gallup (1997), Povinelli (2000) – effect confined to great apes. 22 Self-recognition Chimps pass the “mirror” test The frequency with which subjects touched the marked and unmarked regions of their heads shown in Figure 12.14 during a 30-minute baseline period in the absence of a mirror (left-hand side), and during a 30-minute test period in the presence of a mirror (right-hand side) (adapted from Povinelli et al., 1997). (vii) Self-recognition -  Some evidence of: dolphins (Reiss & Marino, 2001) elephants (Plotnik et al., 2006) pigeons (Epstein et al., 1981) All directed responses towards their own body by using a mirror - Why can some animals use mirrors to direct responses towards their bodies, while others cannot? -  Perhaps only some animals can use information provided by mirrors. But parrots can use mirrors to find hidden objects, yet they do not use mirrors to direct responses towards themselves. - Gallup (1970, 1975, 1983): Animal needs to be self-aware – not universally accepted however! - Heyes (1994b, 1998): Depends upon body concept According to Povinelli (2000), this evolved as a consequence of chimps needing to swing through trees Difficult to apply to the results of Plotnik et al. (2006)! 24 ...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 03/24/2012 for the course PSYC 103 taught by Professor Pearlberg during the Spring '07 term at UCSD.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online