Brain Physiology, Cognition and Consciousness group: topic
This is a public discussion board
Mirror Self-Recognition in Birds
Alfredo Pereira Jr
Thursday, 21 August 2008 14:25 UTC
Mirror-Induced Behavior in the Magpie (Pica pica): Evidence of Self-Recognition
Prior H, Schwarz A, Güntürkün O PLoS Biology Vol. 6, No. 8, e202 doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0060202
Comparative studies suggest that at least some bird species have evolved mental skills similar to those found in humans and apes. This is indicated by feats such as tool use, episodic-like memory, and the ability to use one’s own experience in predicting the behavior of conspecifics. It is, however, not yet clear whether these skills are accompanied by an understanding of the self. In apes, self-directed behavior in response to a mirror has been taken as evidence of self-recognition. We investigated mirror-induced behavior in the magpie, a songbird species from the crow family. As in apes, some individuals behaved in front of the mirror as if they were testing behavioral contingencies. When provided with a mark, magpies showed spontaneous mark-directed behavior. Our findings provide the first evidence of mirror self-recognition in a non-mammalian species. They suggest that essential components of human self-recognition have evolved independently in different vertebrate classes with a separate evolutionary history.
Author Summary
A crucial step in the emergence of self-recognition is the understanding that one’s own mirror reflection does not represent another individual but oneself. In nonhuman species and in children, the “mark test” has been used as an indicator of self-recognition. In these experiments, subjects are placed in front of a mirror and provided with a mark that cannot be seen directly but is visible in the mirror. Mirror self-recognition has been shown in apes and, recently, in dolphins and elephants. Although experimental evidence in nonmammalian species has been lacking, some birds from the corvid family show skill in tasks that require perspective taking, a likely prerequisite for the occurrence of mirror self-recognition. Using the mark test, we obtained evidence for mirror self-recognition in the European Magpie, Pica pica. This finding shows that elaborate cognitive skills arose independently in corvids and primates, taxonomic groups with an evolutionary history that diverged about 300 million years ago. It further proves that the neocortex is not a prerequisite for self-recognition.
Introduction
Since the pioneering work by Gallup 1, a number of studies have investigated the occurrence of mirror-induced self-directed behavior in animals of a great range of species. Most animals exposed to a mirror respond with social behavior, e.g., aggressive displays, and continue to do so during repeated testing. In a few ape species, however, behavior changes over repeated presentations with a mirror. Social behavior decreases, and the mirror is used for exploration of the own body. This suggestive evidence of self-recognition is further corroborated by the mirror and mark test. If an individual is experimentally provided with a mark that cannot be directly seen but is, however, visible in the mirror, increased exploration of the own body and self-directed actions towards the mark suggest that the mirror image is being perceived as self. Fairly clear evidence of this has been obtained for chimpanzees 1, orang-utans 2, and pygmy chimpanzees 3. In gorillas and gibbons, some authors reported failure of self-recognition [4,5] whereas others reported positive findings in at least one individual [6,7]. It should be mentioned that even in the chimpanzee, the species most studied and with the most convincing findings, clear-cut evidence of self-recognition is not obtained in all individuals tested. Prevalence is about 75% in young adults and considerably less in young and aging individuals 8. Findings suggestive of self-recognition in mammals other than apes have been reported for dolphins 9 and elephants 10. In monkeys, nonprimate mammals, and in a number of bird species, exploration of the mirror and social displays were observed, but no hints at mirror-induced self-directed behavior have been obtained 5. Does this mean a cognitive Rubicon with apes and a few other species with complex social behavior on one side and the rest of the animal kingdom on the other side? This might imply that animal self-recognition is restricted to mammals with large brains and highly evolved social cognition but absent from animals without a neocortex.
Within humans and apes, self-recognition might reflect a homologous trait, whereas findings in other mammals hint at a convergent evolution. A likely reason for such convergent evolution of self-recognition in dolphins and elephants is the convergent evolution of complex social understanding and empathetic behavior 10. If self-recognition is linked to highly developed social understanding, some birds species, in particular from the corvid family, are likely candidates for self-recognition, too. A number of studies from the past years have demonstrated an elaborated understanding of social relations, in particular during competition for food. It has been shown that own experience in pilfering caches facilitates predicting similar behavior in others 11, and that magpies 12 and scrub jays 13 remember who of their conspecifics observed them during storing. Thus, food-storing birds might be particularly apt in empathy and perspective taking, which have been suggested to coevolve with mirror self-recognition 14.
An investigation of self-recognition in corvids is not only of interest regarding the convergent evolution of social intelligence, it is also valuable for an understanding of the general principles that govern cognitive evolution and their underlying neural mechanisms. Mammals and birds inherited the same brain components from their last common ancestor nearly 300 million years ago and have since then independently developed a relatively large forebrain pallium. However, both classes differ substantially with regard to the internal organization of their pallium, with birds lacking a laminated cortex but having developed an organization of clustered forebrain entities instead 15. In some groups of birds and mammals, such as corvids and apes, respectively, brain to-body ratios are especially high 16, and these animals are able to generate the same complex cognitive skills 17. This is indicated by feats such as tool use and tool manufacture [18,19], episodic-like memory 20, and the ability to use own experience in predicting the behavior of conspecifics 11. Although it has been shown that some birds, e.g., Grey Parrots 21, use mirrors with skill in order to localize and discriminate objects, no experimental evidence of self-recognition has been obtained in birds so far.
In the present study, magpies were chosen for several reasons. They are food-storing corvids that compete with conspecifics for individually cached and memorized hoards. They thus live under ecological conditions that favor the evolution of social intelligence [12,17]. They achieve the highest level of Piagetian object permanence 22, which is also achieved by apes, but not by monkeys. In addition to showing social understanding during competition for food 12, magpies are curious and prone to approach new situations, making them ideally suited for an experiment that requires spontaneous interaction with a new and puzzling context.
Mirror behavior in animals goes through several stages. In all species tested so far, inspection of the mirror and social behavior has been observed. In species with mirror self-recognition, some of the individuals also show evidence of inspection of their own body and testing for behavioral contingencies after familiarization with the mirror. For example, they move back and forth in front of the mirror, and this might indicate that they check to which degree the mirror image is coupled to their own movement. Individuals achieving this stage often also pass the mirror and mark test.
(Thanks to Malcolm Dean for forwarding the notice to me)
Updated 21 August 2008 14:25 UTC
-
Replies
Jump to resultsResults
-
If interested, I started a small discussion on this topic here
-
I was working many years ago with canary. One of the canary (Tututi) had a very high learning, to acknowledge that he knew my movements when I was at a distance from the laboratory. Also learned from Jehudy Menuhin, Mozart and other composers, melody. Tututi, learned to leave the cage by pushing with the leg. Tututi is was incredible, is a very observer, memorize quickly and was concentrated to learn what you taught. One day I got a mirror in front of him, the first thing we did was an aggressive attack, after several coups against realized he was an object, learning that this was his image. The most amusing is that this was accompanied, Tututi is isolated from other canary. Synthesis in some birds really have nothing in mammal’s that differ in relation to a great intelligence, maybe if the birds had hands, they could accomplish many things that we perform, including more than our primate sister taxa, that is the lesson we learned after This in depth study on perceptions of Passeriformes. I will not elaborate further study that would cover many pages, probably a day that was published this important study for me and I realize that we are not as great as we thought, let’s be modest, this is good.
Best wishes,
Alejandro Correa
-
Show them the pictures, when 40 years ago (ten years at that time had) in a lab in my house, taught him to recognize a canary to his image in a mirror, which surprised me the level of learning and under my idea of the evolution of animal perception.
-
Dear Alejandro,
I would be very much interested in what you have found.
Yours friendly
Hans -
Thank you for your interest Hans, for any question contact with me.
Best regards,
Alejandro
-
[Alfredo Pereira Jr]
“Mirror behavior in animals goes through several stages… In species with mirror self-recognition, some of the individuals also show evidence of inspection of their own body and testing for behavioral contingencies after familiarization with the mirror. For example, they move back and forth in front of the mirror, and this might indicate that they check to which degree the mirror image is coupled to their own movement. Individuals achieving this stage often also pass the mirror and mark test.”
[Philip Benjamin]
Is Self-recognition the same as self-awareness? Is self awareness the same as
recognition of “individuality” which in Latin derives from the “indivisible person”. Is individuality the same as “personhood”?. Empirically, the answers to all these are in the negative. Will any animal recognize that “negativity”?Are there experiments involving parallel mirrrors where many images are available to the “smart” animal? Which one will they recognize as “self”? Once it is familiarized with its own “self” will they recognize thier “self”
in a television screen? If there are a series of simultaneous TV images will they pick one or all just the same? Will they be confused? Sad? Mad? Glad? Afraid?That is a test of ratiocination, a uniquely distinct anthropic power.
Now turning to another ‘form’ of sentience, reflected sunlight from a mirror will evoke the customary stimulus-response from a plant kept in a dark room, perhaps a little less quantitatively, but qualitatively the same response. The plant will not recognize its “self” or the difference between direct and reflected light from the sun.
What is significant here is not the “similaritiy” but the distinction with a difference.
There is a “common denominator” the first dimension where all sentience IS the SAME. Then there is a second “dimension” which makes the animal different from the plant, and a third dimension which makes the antropic difference.
The dark “common denominator” is a universal “dimension” common to all sentience, just as electron is a universal constituent. Since it cannot be EASILY detected by EM tools, it coould very well be a dark matter component, something similar to or the same as the theoretical AXION and corresponding to electron. The “second” dimension may be a second type of axion corresponding to proton. The “third dimension” may be a third type of axion corresponding to neutron.
Thus there is an incomplete dark body in plants and animals and a complete dark body- the invisible Homo sapiens- in humans with a “perfect” Dark Chemistry and intransient non-entropic invisible structures.
The physical evidence is the taxonomically differential ELF photon emission rates. The psychological evidence is the induced paranormal phenomena including OBE, in complex varying low magnetic fields, attributable to dissociation of non-EM/ EM CHEMICAL bonds to varying degrees.
Upon total dissolution or de-coupling of these bonds, the intransient “dark body” is left in space at a large relatively negative energy state (-E=mc^2). So there is no possibility of any “ghost” roaming about. To raise this to any functional level will require humongous energy.
The Seth/Robert “chanelling” may then be carried out by “Dark Matter” entities who are already at a high energy state.
Best regards,
Philip Benjamin
(Excerpts from copy rights and articles published and submitted)
-
Hi Philip and all,
Philip, I’ve done a quick net stalk on your affiliations and views and, although I’m not one to talk, being a little “against the mainstream” myself, I’m just a tad worried about the context of these ideas. I studied philosophy before moving into science – indeed I did this to ground my arguments in empirically derived evidence – so I’m afraid that arguing for such a complex idea consisting of a large variety of theories which currently do not have direct experimental evidence doesn’t strike me as the best course for research in science or the humanities. I don’t want to be critical and fall into the trap of labelling things “bad science” because I think that is often unproductive, but combining areas such as dark matter, electromagnetics in biology and other controversial areas of science into a single theory is currently merely an act of faith rather than investigative science (Indeed I think dark matter was named to show our lack of knowledge about the interaction between gravity and matter).
I also noted you wrote some pretty crazy things in other forums, so I hope I’ve not wasted my time replying!On the other hand you are correct to probe the definitions and methods that are used in such experiments – we can only hope to refine them and thus refine our understanding of awareness, which as we all know is neurologically multi-faceted (Oliver Sacks’ books, for instance, contain excellent examples). However, I think this was an innocent example showing a “case study”, if you wish, of animal behaviour and possible awareness and that in itself is interesting.
All the best,
Michael -
[Michael Butler]
I don’t want to be critical and fall into the trap of labelling things….
[Philip Benjamin]
I cannot disagree with you more. One has to be CRITICAL, very critical even destructively critical if ncessary, to get to the bottom of things.
I was unappolegitically and still am concerned about the abuse, misuse and disuse of the English term “consciousness” which to me is nothing more or les than the antonym of “unconsciousness”. It is my utter failure to understand why and how and when some “divine” attributes got embedded and encoded into this ordinary English word, that led me to “sentience” or “life” as the right and proper word for the newly coined, rather invented, “consciousness”.
Because, the origin of this newly loaded “Consciousness the Absolute” is from “atman/brahman” in Sanskrit which as ruah(Hebrew), spiritus (Latin), pneuma (Greek) which all mean “breath” (“wind”). Greek psykhe contrasted to pneuma, Latin anima contrasted to spiritus and, Hebrew neshama or nephesh as opposed to ruach; all come from"breath". The Latin root of animus is a cognate of Greek anemos (wind), breath and Sanskrit aniti (he breathes). The word ‘anima’ derives from the Sanskrit root *ane- (“to breathe”), from which animal and animation also originate. ‘Breath’ means ‘Life’ or ‘sentience’.
When Thales said: “Everything is full of gods”, he meant in effect “full of breath”. The notion of a ubiquitous incorporeal , non-quantifiable “consciousness” substance as the energy present individually in all living things has no linguistic or ‘material’ or rational significance, only a contrived metaphysical or mystical concept. It is not surprising how real ‘pillars of science’ are so easily convinced of its presence- some even claiming that THIS is a real factor missing in Quantum equations- because though the ‘particles of breath’ belong to the quantum realm, breath – that is LIFE- itself is NOT. Any extraordinary non-EM invisible counterpart of the ordinary EM visible ‘life’ ought to come from the quantum realm of invisible extraordinary matter. The right stuff for that is a bio dark-matter and the right candidate for that is the theoretical axion or axion-like particles and the right approach is to look for three different such particles to correspond to electrons, protons and neutrons.
It will be sheer folly to ignore the vast data on the differential rates of emission of ELF photons since EM/non-EM physical bonds and non-EM chemical bonds may have vital roles in such emissions. Complex low energy varying magnetic fields also will have effects that will “physically” explain paranormal phenomena such as OBE. If SUSY Chemistry is reasonable, Dark Matter Chemistry is equally if not more rational.
William James the patron saint of “Consciousness” studies had no need for such use of this term. You will not find ‘consciousness’ as one of the 22 some components he specifies for ‘Self’. Conscientiousness is one of them.
[Michael Butler]
… I think that is often unproductive, but combining areas such as dark matter, electromagnetics in biology and other controversial areas of science into a single theory is currently merely an act of faith rather than investigative science (Indeed I think dark matter was named to show our lack of knowledge about the interaction between gravity and matter).
[Philip Benjamin]
What is unproductive is wild ‘mystical’ (essentially subjective) speculations being elevated to science to explain a phenomenon (mind housed in ‘visible’ sentience) that operates and functions in and through and for the physical ‘body’.
[Michael Butler]
I also noted you wrote some pretty crazy things in other forums, so I hope I’ve not wasted my time replying!
[Philip Benjamin]
It will be unwise for me to respond to such unspecified generalities. Critically narrate your findings and thrash then out rationally. I will welcome that with gratitude.
What is one man’s sacrilege is another man’s dainty meal. As far as I know I have not put out my name in any non-scientific forums, unless perhaps in unguarded moments.
[Michael Butler]
On the other hand you are correct to probe the definitions and methods that are used in such experiments – we can only hope to refine them and thus refine our understanding of awareness, which as we all know is neurologically multi-faceted (Oliver Sacks’ books, for instance, contain excellent examples). However, I think this was an innocent example showing a “case study”, if you wish, of animal behaviour and possible awareness and that in itself is interesting.
[Philip Benjamin]
“Humaniqueness” from Harvard School of Philosophy is more to the point than all these wishful kind hearted musings on unrealities.
-
Philip, I think we are a little off subject but I’ll reply anyway. Anyone not interested can skip to my last paragraph!
In terms of the definition or use of the word consciousness/unconsciousness, I haven’t been in the philosophical discussion on this subject and so could not comment – indeed I left philosophy because I got bored of such discussions. On the other hand you appear to be preaching to the converted – I certainly would not wish to advocate a dualist perspective of life and nor I think would many people on this forum, but I also would not wish to deny other people’s beliefs whilst we do not have a standard modern physical theory. Theoretical physics such as supersymmetry (SUSY), dark matter, bioelectromagnetics etc. are all currently uncertain, incompletely confirmed or investigated in a biased fashion – all I wished to say was that one should keep one’s mind open, since there are currently a lot of theories without much actual progress. In such circumstances it is surely safer to err on scepticism when it comes to meta-theories which seek to unify these.
Although your comment that subjective speculations should not be ‘elevated to science’ is of course true for an enterprise (i.e. science) which prises itself on objectivity, I think most people here are interested in uncovering the physical/biological foundations of such subjectivity. We cannot deny that we feel, think and behave as subjects, whether these feelings and thoughts are emergent properties of physics (or not), and so we must eventually find a way to fit social and cultural aspects into science otherwise we will not have a complete understanding of our daily reality. This may be biased towards which subject matter we focus upon, but, as long as we realise this, who cares?
I can see that you are very much against any movement towards a “soft science” as it may be stated. I understand that the use and misuse of scientific terminology by individuals in the wider world for profit, political or religious gain is very jarring and irritating especially when it is mixed with a typical air of conscientious “kind heartedness”, but I do not think that is any reason to deny a more liberal and open-minded attitude in science. Yes, one has to be critical, but with moderation – one cannot become so obsessed with pure science that you forget the messy reality that we live in.
Indeed I would much prefer to act kindly in an irrational fashion than to lose my humanity in a world of purely conceptual theory. If you believe that ‘rationality’ is more important than ethical behaviour then that is your view, but I think most people would disagree especially in the light of modern history. And although you appear to vitriolic-ally defend objectivity you appear to have a bias towards ideas such as “humaniqueness” which are possibly suggestive of narrowly defined bad science/philosophy. Indeed have you ever thought that “rationality” and science are human and social based concepts in the first place? I think we would learn a lot by questioning what exactly objectivity is supposed to be.Finally, I inferred from your affiliations and style of language that you are “noetic phil” with the username “noeticcentre”, who variously baits religious forums with gobbledegook and copies and pastes the same spiel about dark chemistry at every opportunity possible and verbosely defends it without any wish to interact with the original topic discussion. My worries were that this is not particularly productive nor particularly pleasant for those involved in the various forums who politely allow you to flaunt social etiquette on the basis that you are taking their interests seriously, whether you are or not.
As pointed out by a few people in another discussion of this topic, mirror self-recognition is perhaps a feature that has some basis in how the animal developed and was nurtured – pure physics may one day be able to better describe mechanisms involved in the many layers of this but it is undoubtedly more simply viewed as a complex systems biological and ecological question.
Cheers,
Michael -
Sorry to take over the forum rather… I wish I could edit things I’d already written! Just wanted to clarify that I’m all for discussing the definition of consciousness (I wouldn’t have joined this group otherwise :) I just meant in my previous post that I found the arguments in my philosophy of mind department, when they didn’t have any reference to neuroscience at all, rather narrow! Loving the broad spectrum of views here.
On the subject of bird self-recognition, does anyone know of researchers looking into the early development of animal neuroscience, post-natal? I know that in the psychology of music community there is great interest in the ‘musical’ communication and the development of self and others in infants – Colwyn Trevarthen has done some interesting work on this (afraid I couldn’t find a free article). I’d love to hear of similar work in other mammals and birds.
All the best,
Michael
Results
-
