close

Current Issue Highlights

Latest Articles

  • Image

    No Same–Different Concept or Entropy Stimulus Control

    Journal of Comparative Psychology. February 2026: 140(1):11-21

    To investigate same–different conceptualization in nonhuman animals, researchers have used the multiple-item array task (MIAT), which requires discriminating whether icons in an array are the same or different from one another. Although entropy-based explanations for MIAT performance have been influential, their validity is debatable. In Experiment 1, budgerigars and pigeons were trained to discriminate whether 16 icons were the same or different from one another. When the number of icons was reduced, the discrimination tendency of both species was correlated with the entropy value, replicating previous findings. Experiment 2 further supported this correlation by controlling for the number of icons and icon patterns. However, Experiment 3 revealed that when entropy was constant, the subjects judged different more frequently for arrays with more icons per pattern, which contradicts entropy-based predictions. Notably, the response patterns of the subjects in Experiment 3 were inconsistent with logical same–different judgments, suggesting that these animals perform the MIAT based on criteria distinct from those of same–different conceptualization. These findings challenge the validity of typical MIAT for examining same–different concepts in animals and indicate the need to develop more reliable alternative methods.

  • Image

    Beware of My Face

    Journal of Comparative Psychology. February 2026: 140(1):22-33

    The composite perception of individual elements and their configurations on the face during its recognition, so-called holistic processing, has been demonstrated in humans and some animals. However, it is unknown whether similar processes apply, at least to some extent, to the recognition of ecologically relevant stimuli by birds. The important role of facial elements (hooked beak and conspicuous eye color) in recognizing avian predators has been repeatedly demonstrated. However, no attention has yet been paid to the importance of their configuration (i.e., the mutual position of the eyes and beak). We tested the ability of untrained wild great tits to recognize a dangerous predator with its eyes rotated by 90° around its beak (inline dummy) and by 180°around its beak (invert dummy) in an outdoor aviary experiment. A dummy of a sparrowhawk with its head devoid of eyes and beak (empty dummy) served as a behavioral baseline alongside dummies of an unmodified sparrowhawk and a pigeon (as a harmless control). The tits showed no more fear toward the empty dummy than they did toward the pigeon. Toward the invert dummy, the tits showed no less fear than toward the unmodified sparrowhawk. By contrast, in the case of the inline modification, their behavior can be interpreted as increased fear. Our results do not prove that tits use holistic processing in predator recognition, but sensitivity to the presence and configuration of facial elements in the predator’s face suggests that this possibility should not be ruled out.

Most Popular Articles