↓ Skip to main content

Pigeons can discriminate “good” and “bad” paintings by children

Overview of attention for article published in Animal Cognition, June 2009
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
3 blogs
twitter
54 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages
video
1 YouTube creator

Readers on

mendeley
132 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Pigeons can discriminate “good” and “bad” paintings by children
Published in
Animal Cognition, June 2009
DOI 10.1007/s10071-009-0246-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shigeru Watanabe

Abstract

Humans have the unique ability to create art, but non-human animals may be able to discriminate "good" art from "bad" art. In this study, I investigated whether pigeons could be trained to discriminate between paintings that had been judged by humans as either "bad" or "good". To do this, adult human observers first classified several children's paintings as either "good" (beautiful) or "bad" (ugly). Using operant conditioning procedures, pigeons were then reinforced for pecking at "good" paintings. After the pigeons learned the discrimination task, they were presented with novel pictures of both "good" and "bad" children's paintings to test whether they had successfully learned to discriminate between these two stimulus categories. The results showed that pigeons could discriminate novel "good" and "bad" paintings. Then, to determine which cues the subjects used for the discrimination, I conducted tests of the stimuli when the paintings were of reduced size or grayscale. In addition, I tested their ability to discriminate when the painting stimuli were mosaic and partial occluded. The pigeons maintained discrimination performance when the paintings were reduced in size. However, discrimination performance decreased when stimuli were presented as grayscale images or when a mosaic effect was applied to the original stimuli in order to disrupt spatial frequency. Thus, the pigeons used both color and pattern cues for their discrimination. The partial occlusion did not disrupt the discriminative behavior suggesting that the pigeons did not attend to particular parts, namely upper, lower, left or right half, of the paintings. These results suggest that the pigeons are capable of learning the concept of a stimulus class that humans name "good" pictures. The second experiment showed that pigeons learned to discriminate watercolor paintings from pastel paintings. The subjects showed generalization to novel paintings. Then, as the first experiment, size reduction test, grayscale test, mosaic processing test and partial occlusion test were carried out. The results suggest that the pigeons used both color and pattern cues for the discrimination and show that non-human animals, such as pigeons, can be trained to discriminate abstract visual stimuli, such as pictures and may also have the ability to learn the concept of "beauty" as defined by humans.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 54 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 132 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 7 5%
United States 3 2%
Canada 3 2%
Germany 2 2%
Austria 2 2%
France 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Hungary 1 <1%
Other 3 2%
Unknown 108 82%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 39 30%
Researcher 30 23%
Student > Master 15 11%
Student > Bachelor 14 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 5%
Other 18 14%
Unknown 10 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 37 28%
Psychology 29 22%
Arts and Humanities 9 7%
Social Sciences 6 5%
Computer Science 6 5%
Other 31 23%
Unknown 14 11%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 57. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 November 2023.
All research outputs
#767,771
of 25,805,386 outputs
Outputs from Animal Cognition
#183
of 1,587 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,779
of 116,258 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Animal Cognition
#3
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,805,386 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,587 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 116,258 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.