Skip to content Skip to sidebar Skip to footer
Home / Baby Confident Pigs 78 Best Images of Animals

Baby Confident Pigs 78 Best Images of Animals

Post a Comment

Animal self-awareness test to determine self-recognition in a mirror

The mirror exam—sometimes called the marking test, mirror self-recognition (MSR) test, red spot technique, or rouge test—is a behavioral technique developed in 1970 by American psychologist Gordon Gallup Jr. as an attempt to make up one's mind whether an animal possesses the power of visual self-recognition.[1] The MSR test is the traditional method for attempting to measure physiological and cognitive self-awareness. Yet, agreement has been reached that animals can be cocky-aware in ways not measured past the mirror test, such as distinguishing betwixt their ain and others' songs and scents.[ii]

In the classic MSR test, an animal is anesthetized then marked (eastward.g., painted or a sticker attached) on an expanse of the body the brute cannot ordinarily meet. When the fauna recovers from the anesthetic, it is given access to a mirror. If the animal then touches or investigates the marking, information technology is taken equally an indication that the animal perceives the reflected epitome as an epitome of itself, rather than of another brute.

Very few species have passed the MSR test. Species that take include the great apes, a unmarried Asiatic elephant, Rays, dolphins, orcas, the Eurasian magpie, and the cleaner wrasse. A broad range of species has been reported to fail the examination, including several species of monkeys, behemothic pandas, and sea lions.[3] [iv]

Method and history [edit]

The inspiration for the mirror test comes from an anecdote about Charles Darwin and a captive orangutan. While visiting the London Zoo in 1838, Darwin observed an orangutan, named Jenny, throwing a tantrum after being teased with an apple tree by her keeper. This started him thinking about the subjective experience of an orangutan.[five] He also watched Jenny gaze into a mirror and noted the possibility that she recognized herself in the reflection.[6]

In 1970, Gordon Gallup Jr. experimentally investigated the possibility of self-recognition with two male and two female person wild preadolescent chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), none of which had presumably seen a mirror previously. Each chimpanzee was put into a room past itself for two days. Next, a full-length mirror was placed in the room for a total of 80 hours at periodically decreasing distances. A multitude of behaviors was recorded upon introducing the mirrors to the chimpanzees. Initially, the chimpanzees made threatening gestures at their own images, ostensibly seeing their own reflections as threatening. Eventually, the chimps used their ain reflections for self-directed responding behaviors, such every bit grooming parts of their body previously not observed without a mirror, picking their noses, making faces, and blowing bubbles at their own reflections.

Gallup expanded the written report by manipulating the chimpanzees' advent and observing their reaction to their reflection in the mirror. Gallup anesthetized the chimpanzees and and then painted a red alcohol-soluble dye on the countenance ridge and on the top half of the reverse ear. When the dye dried, information technology had virtually no olfactory or tactile cues. Gallup then returned the chimpanzees to the muzzle (with the mirror removed) and immune them to regain total consciousness. He then recorded the frequency with which the chimpanzees spontaneously touched the marked areas of pare. Later on 30 minutes, the mirror was reintroduced into the room and the frequency of touching the marked areas again determined. The frequency of touching increased to four to ten, with the mirror present, compared to only one when the mirror had been removed. The chimpanzees sometimes inspected their fingers visually or olfactorily after touching the marks. Other mark-directed behavior included turning and adjusting of the body to improve view the marker in the mirror, or tactile examination of the mark with an appendage while viewing the mirror.[1]

An important attribute of the classical marker-test (or rouge examination) is that the mark/dye is nontactile, preventing attention existence fatigued to the marker through additional perceptual cues (somesthesis). For this reason, animals in the majority of classical tests are anesthetized. Some tests use a tactile marker.[7] If the fauna stares unusually long at the part of its body with the mark or tries to rub it off, then information technology is said to laissez passer the test.

Animals that are considered to be able to recognize themselves in a mirror typically progress through four stages of behavior when facing a mirror:[viii]

  1. social responses
  2. physical inspection (east.chiliad. looking behind the mirror)
  3. repetitive mirror-testing behavior
  4. realization of seeing themselves

Gallup conducted a follow-upwardly report in which 2 chimpanzees with no prior experience of a mirror were put under anesthesia, marked, and observed. After recovery, they fabricated no mark-directed behaviors either before or after being provided with a mirror.[ commendation needed ]

The rouge test was too washed by Michael Lewis and Jeanne Brooks-Gunn in 1979 for the purpose of self-recognition with homo mothers and their children.[9]

Implication and alternating explanations [edit]

The default implication fatigued from Gallup'due south test is that those animals who pass the test possess some form of cocky-recognition. However, a number of authors accept suggested alternative explanations of a pass. For example, Povinelli[10] suggests that the fauna may see the reflection as some odd entity that it is able to control through its own movements. When the reflected entity has a mark on it, so the brute can remove the mark or alarm the reflected entity to it using its own movements to practice and so. Critically, this caption does non assume that the animals necessarily see the reflected entity as "self".

Criticism [edit]

The MSR test has been criticized for several reasons, in particular considering it may issue in false negative findings.[11]

The MSR examination may be of limited value when applied to species that primarily use senses other than vision.[12] [ verification needed ] For example, dogs mainly apply olfaction and audition; vision is used third. This may be why dogs fail the MSR exam. With this in mind, biologist Marc Bekoff developed a smell-based prototype using dog urine to test self-recognition in canines.[13] [12] He tested his own canis familiaris, merely his results were inconclusive.[14] Domestic dog cognition researcher Alexandra Horowitz formalized Bekoff'south idea in a controlled experiment, start reported in 2016[fifteen] and published in 2017.[16] She compared the dogs' behavior when examining their own and others' odors, and also when examining their own odor with an added smell "marker" analogous to the visual mark in MSR tests. These subjects not only discriminated their own odor from that of other dogs, every bit Bekoff had found, but also spent more time investigating their own aroma "image" when information technology was modified, as subjects who pass the MSR test do.[17] A 2016 study[xviii] suggested an ethological approach, the "Sniff examination of self-recognition (STSR)" which did not shed light on different means of checking for self-recognition.

Some other concern with the MSR test is that some species speedily respond aggressively to their mirror reflection as if it were a threatening conspecific, thereby preventing the animal to calmly consider what the reflection really represents. This may be why gorillas and monkeys neglect the MSR test.[xix] [20]

In a MSR test, animals may not recognise the mark as abnormal, or may non be sufficiently motivated to react to it. However, this does non hateful they are unable to recognize themselves. For example, in a MSR test conducted on three elephants, only one elephant passed the exam, but the two elephants that failed withal demonstrated behaviors that tin can be interpreted as self-recognition. The researchers commented that the elephants might non have touched the marker because it was not important plenty to them.[21] Similarly, lesser apes infrequently engage in cocky-grooming, which may explain their failure to touch a marking on their heads in the mirror test.[11]

Frans de Waal, a biologist and primatologist at Emory University, has stated that cocky-awareness is non binary, and the mirror exam should non be relied upon as a sole indicator of cocky-awareness, though it is a skilful test to have. Unlike animals adapt to the mirror in unlike ways.[22]

Finally, controversy arose over whether self-recognition (through specifically visual stimuli) implies self-sensation. Dogs recognize their own olfactory property as different from others' scents,[2] but fail the traditional, visual mirror test. There are too many animals that are biologically unfit for this examination, for case, certain species of mole that are born blind.

Not-human animals [edit]

Several studies using a wide range of species have investigated the occurrence of spontaneous, marking-directed behavior when given a mirror, as originally proposed by Gallup. Most marked animals given a mirror initially respond with social behavior, such as ambitious displays, and continue to do and then during repeated testing. Only a few species accept touched or directed behavior toward the mark, thereby passing the classic MSR test.

Findings in MSR studies are not always conclusive. Even in chimpanzees, the species most studied and with the almost disarming findings, clear-cut evidence of self-recognition is not obtained in all individuals tested.[23] Prevalence is near 75% in young adults and considerably less in young and aging individuals.[24]

Until the 2008 study on magpies, self-recognition was idea to reside in the neocortex expanse of the brain. Nonetheless, this encephalon region is absent in nonmammals. Self-recognition may exist a case of convergent development, where similar evolutionary pressures result in similar behaviors or traits, although species go far at them by different routes, and the underlying machinery may be different.[11]

Animals that have passed [edit]

Mammals [edit]

Cetaceans [edit]
  • Bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus): Researchers in a written report on two male bottlenose dolphins observed their reactions to mirrors later having a marker placed on them. Reactions such as decreased filibuster in budgeted the mirror, repetitious caput circling and close viewing of the centre or genital region that had been marked, were reported as evidence of MSR in these species.[25] [26]
  • Killer whale (Orcinus orca): Killer whales and false killer whales (Pseudorca crassidens) may be able to recognise themselves in mirrors.[27]
Primates [edit]
  • Bonobo (Pan paniscus)[28] [29]
  • Bornean orangutan (Pongo pygmaeus):[30] All the same, mirror tests with an infant (2-year-old), male person orangutan failed to reveal self-recognition.[31]
  • Chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes):[1] [32] [33] However, mirror tests with an infant (11 months old) male chimpanzee failed to reveal self-recognition.[31] Ii young chimpanzees showed retentivity of MSR after one twelvemonth without access to mirrors.[34]
  • Western gorilla (Gorilla gorilla): Findings for western gorillas have been mixed; more and then than for the other great apes. At least four studies have reported that gorillas failed to show self-recognition.[xxx] [35] [36] [37] Still, other studies have shown self-recognition although on gorillas with extensive human contact and required modification of the test past habituating the gorillas to the mirror and not using coldhearted.[38] [39] Koko reportedly passed the MSR test, but this was without anesthetic.[twoscore] [41] In gorillas, protracted eye contact is an aggressive gesture and they may, therefore, fail the mirror examination because they deliberately avoid making eye contact with their reflections. This could as well explain why only gorillas with extensive human interaction and a sure degree of separation from other gorillas and usual gorilla behavior pass the test.[xl] [41]
Proboscidea [edit]
  • Asian elephant (Elephas maximus): In a study performed in 2006, three female Asian elephants were exposed to a large mirror to investigate their responses. Visible marks and invisible sham-marks were applied to the elephants' heads to test whether they would pass the MSR test.[8] One of the elephants showed mark-directed behavior, though the other 2 did not. An earlier study failed to find MSR in two Asian elephants;[42] information technology was claimed this was because the mirror was too small-scale.[viii] The study was conducted with the Wildlife Conservation Society using elephants at the Bronx Zoo in New York. All three Asian elephants in the study were standing in front end of a 2.5 m-by-ii.five m mirror—they inspected the rear and brought food close to the mirror for consumption. Evidence of elephant self-recognition was shown when one (and only one) elephant, Happy, repeatedly touched a painted Ten on her head with her trunk, a mark which could only exist seen in the mirror. Happy ignored another mark made with colorless paint that was also on her forehead to ensure she was not only reacting to a smell or feeling. Frans de Waal, who ran the study, stated, "These parallels between humans and elephants suggest a convergent cerebral evolution perhaps related to complex guild and cooperation."[8] [43]

Birds [edit]

Video of the responses of a European magpie in a MSR test: The magpie repeatedly attempts to remove the marks.

  • Eurasian magpie (Pica pica): The Eurasian magpie is the first non-mammal to have been found to pass the mirror test. In 2008, researchers applied a small-scale cherry, yellow, or black sticker to the throat of 5 Eurasian magpies, where they could be seen by the bird only past using a mirror. The birds were and then given a mirror. The feel of the sticker on their throats did not seem to warning the magpies. However, when the birds with colored stickers glimpsed themselves in the mirror, they scratched at their throats—a articulate indication that they recognised the image in the mirror as their own. Those that received a black sticker, invisible confronting the black cervix feathers, did not react.[23] In 2020, researchers attempted to closely replicate the 2008 study with a larger number of magpies, and failed to ostend the results of the 2008 report. The researchers stated that while these results did non disprove the 2008 written report, the failure to replicate indicated the results of the original study should be treated with caution.[44]
  • Some pigeons can laissez passer the mirror test afterward training in the prerequisite behaviors.[45] In 1981, American psychologist B. F. Skinner plant that pigeons are capable of passing a highly modified mirror test after extensive preparation.[46] [47] In the experiment, a pigeon was trained to look in a mirror to find a response key behind it, which the pigeon then turned to peck to obtain nutrient. Thus, the dove learned to use a mirror to find critical elements of its environs. Next, the pigeon was trained to peck at dots placed on its feathers; food was, again, the upshot of touching the dot. The latter training was accomplished in the absence of the mirror. The final test was placing a small bib on the pigeon—enough to cover a dot placed on its lower belly. A control period without the mirror present yielded no pecking at the dot. When the mirror was revealed, the pigeon became active, looked in the mirror and then tried to peck on the dot under the bib. However, untrained pigeons take never passed the mirror examination.[48]

Fish [edit]

  • According to a study done in 2019, cleaner wrasses accept become the first fish observed to laissez passer the mirror test. The bluestreak cleaner wrasse (Labroides dimidiatus) is a tiny tropical reef cleaner fish. Cleaner fish have an adapted evolutionary beliefs in which they remove parasites and expressionless tissue from larger fish. When put through the mirror examination, using a beneficial brown gel injected into the peel of the fish, and resembling a parasite, the cleaner wrasse showed all the behaviors of passing through the phases of the examination. When provided with a colored tag in a modified mark test, the fish attempted to scrape off this tag past scraping their bodies on the side of the mirror. Gordon Gallup believes the cleaner wrasses' behavior can be attributed to something other than recognizing itself in a mirror. Gallup has argued that a cleaner wrasse's job in life is to be enlightened of ectoparasites on the bodies of other fish, and so it would be hyper enlightened of the faux parasite that it noticed in the mirror, perhaps seeing information technology equally a parasite that it needed to clean off of a different fish. The authors of the report antiphon that because the fish checked itself in the mirror earlier and after the scraping, this means that the fish has self-sensation and recognizes that its reflection belongs to its own body.[49] [50] [51] The cleaner wrasses, when tested, spent a large amount of time with the mirror when they were showtime getting acquainted with information technology, without whatsoever training. Importantly, the cleaner wrasses performed scraping behavior with the colored marker, and they did not perform the same scraping behavior without the colored mark in the presence of the mirror, nor when they were with the mirror and had a transparent mark.[52] Following diverse objections, the researchers published a follow-upward study in 2022, where they did the mirror test on a larger sample of wrasses and experimented with several marking techniques. The new results "increase[d] [the researchers'] confidence that cleaner fish indeed laissez passer the mark test", although wrasses attempted to scrape off the marking only when it resembled a parasite.[53] [54]
  • In 2016 a modified mirror test washed on 2 captive Manta rays (Cephalopterus manta) showed that they exhibited behavior associated with self-awareness (i.eastward. contingency checking and unusual self-directed behavior).[55]

Animals that have failed [edit]

Some animals that have reportedly failed the archetype MSR test include:

Mammals [edit]

Carnivorans [edit]
  • Body of water lions (Zalophus californianus)[27] [56]
  • Giant panda (Ailuropoda melanoleuca): In one study, 34 captive giant pandas of a wide range of ages were tested. None of the pandas responded to the mark and many reacted aggressively towards the mirror, causing the researchers to consider the pandas viewed their reflection as a conspecific.[57]
  • Dogs (Dog): Dogs either treat the prototype every bit another animal, or come to ignore it completely. [58]
  • Cats (Felis catus): Cats may respond to beingness exposed to a mirror past showing aggression or disinterest and are known not to pass the mirror exam.[59]
Primates [edit]
  • Stump-tailed macaque (Macaca arctoides)[1] [57]
  • Crab-eating macaque (Macaca fascicularis)[57]
  • Rhesus macaque (Macaca mulatta):[ane] [57] Withal, it has been reported that rhesus monkeys exhibit other behaviours in response to a mirror that signal cocky-recognition.[60] Rhesus macaques take been observed to apply mirrors to study otherwise-subconscious parts of their bodies, such as their genitals and implants in their heads. It has been suggested this demonstrates at least a partial self-awareness, although this is disputed.[61]
  • Black-and-white colobus (Colobus guereza)[62]
  • Capuchin monkey (Cebus apella)[57] [63]
  • Hamadryas baboon (Papio hamadryas)[57]
  • Cotton-height tamarin (Saguinus oedipus)[64]

Birds [edit]

  • Gray parrot[56]
  • New Caledonian crow[65]
  • Jackdaw[66]
  • Dandy tit (Parus major)[67]

Fish [edit]

  • The Tanganyikan cichlid, or daffodil cichlid (Neolamprologus pulcher), is some other fish that has failed the mirror test, according to a study done in 2017. Although not cleaner fish like the cleaner wrasses, these fish are typically regarded as socially intelligent and tin recognize conspecifics in their social groups. Therefore, they would theoretically make good candidates for the mirror examination, only they ended up failing. Similar to the cleaner wrasse, the Tanganyikan cichlid outset exhibited signs of aggression towards the mirrored image. Afterwards a colored mark was injected, the researchers plant no increased scraping or trying to remove the mark, and the cichlids did non observe the side with the marking any longer than it would have otherwise. This demonstrates a lack of contingency checking and means that the Tanganyikan cichlid did non pass the mirror examination.[68]

Cephalopods [edit]

  • Octopuses oriented towards their image in a mirror, simply no deviation in their behaviour (every bit observed by humans) was seen in this condition when compared with a view of other octopuses.[69]

Animals that may laissez passer [edit]

Mammals [edit]

Primates [edit]

Gibbon (k. Hylobates, Symphalangus and Nomascus) have failed to bear witness self-recognition in at to the lowest degree two tests.[eleven] [70] However, modified mirror tests with 3 species of gibbons (Hylobates syndactylus, H. gabriellae, H. leucogenys) in 2000 showed convincing evidence of self-recognition even though the animals failed the standard version of the mirror test.[71]

Pigs [edit]

Pigs can use visual information seen in a mirror to notice food, and show evidence of cocky-recognition when presented with their reflections. In a 2009 experiment, seven of the 8 pigs tested were able to discover a bowl of nutrient hidden behind a wall and revealed using a mirror. The eighth pig looked behind the mirror for the food.[72] BBC Globe also showed the food bowl exam, and the "matching shapes to holes" test, in the Extraordinary Animals serial.[73] [74]

Fish [edit]

Ii captive giant manta rays showed frequent, unusual and repetitive movements in forepart of a mirror, suggesting contingency checking. They too showed unusual self-directed behaviors when exposed to the mirror.[55] Manta rays have the largest brains of all fish. In 2016, Csilla Ari tested captive manta rays at the Atlantis Aquarium in the Bahamas by exposing them to a mirror. The manta rays appeared to be extremely interested in the mirror. They behaved strangely in front the mirror, including doing flips and moving their fins. They likewise blew bubbling. They did not interact with the reflection every bit if it were another manta ray; they did non endeavor to socialize with it. However, just an bodily mirror examination tin can determine if they actually recognize their own reflections, or if they are just demonstrating exploratory behavior. A archetype mirror test has yet to be washed on manta rays.[75]

Some other fish that may pass the mirror test is the common archerfish, Toxotes chatareus. A written report in 2016 showed that archerfish can discriminate between homo faces. Researchers showed this by testing the archerfish, which spit a stream of water at an epitome of a face when they recognized it. The archerfish would be trained to await food when it spat at a certain epitome. When the archerfish was shown images of other human faces, the fish did non spit. They simply spit for the image that they recognized.[76] Archerfish unremarkably, in the wild, use their spitting streams to knock downward prey from higher up into the h2o beneath. The study showed that archerfish could exist trained to recognize a three-dimensional image of i confront compared to an image of a dissimilar face and would spit at the face when they recognized information technology. The archerfish were fifty-fifty able to go along recognizing the image of the confront even when it was rotated thirty, 60 and xc°.[77]

Humans [edit]

A homo child exploring his reflection

The rouge test is a version of the mirror test used with human children.[78] Using rouge makeup, an experimenter surreptitiously places a dot on the confront of the child. The children are so placed in forepart of a mirror and their reactions are monitored; depending on the child'southward development, distinct categories of responses are demonstrated. This exam is widely cited as the main measure for mirror self-recognition in human children.[79] [80] [81]

Developmental reactions [edit]

From the ages of 6 to 12 months, the child typically sees a "sociable playmate" in the mirror'due south reflection. Cocky-admiring and embarrassment usually begin at 12 months, and at 14 to 20 months, most children demonstrate avoidance behaviors.[78] Finally, at 18 months, half of children recognize the reflection in the mirror as their own[79] and by xx to 24 months, self-recognition climbs to 65%. Children practise so past evincing mark-directed behavior; they touch their ain noses or try to wipe the marks off.[78]

Cocky-recognition in mirrors apparently is independent of familiarity with reflecting surfaces.[80] In some cases, the rouge test has been shown to have differing results, depending on sociocultural orientation. For example, a Cameroonian Nso sample of infants 18 to 20 months of age had an extremely low amount of self-recognition outcomes at three.2%. The study also found two strong predictors of self-recognition: object stimulation (maternal effort of attracting the attention of the infant to an object either person touched) and mutual middle contact.[82] A potent correlation between self-concept and object permanence have besides been demonstrated using the rouge examination.[83]

Implications [edit]

The rouge exam is a measure of self-concept; the kid who touches the rouge on his own nose upon looking into a mirror demonstrates the basic ability to understand self-sensation.[84] [85] [86] Animals,[12] young children,[87] and people proceeds sight afterward being bullheaded from birth,[13] sometimes react to their reflection in the mirror as though it were another individual.[ citation needed ]

Theorists have remarked on the significance of this menstruum in a child'due south life. For example, psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan used a similar test in marking the mirror stage when growing up.[88] Current views of the cocky in psychology position the self as playing an integral part in homo motivation, cognition, affect, and social identity.[81]

Methodological flaws [edit]

In that location is some fence equally to the estimation of the results of the mirror test,[12] and researchers in one report accept identified some potential problems with the test equally a means of gauging self-sensation in immature children and animals.[89]

Proposing that a self-recognizing kid or fauna may not demonstrate mark-directed behavior considering they are not motivated to clean upwardly their faces, thus providing wrong results, the study compared results of the standard rouge test methodology against a modified version of the test.[89]

In the classic test, the experimenter first played with the children, making sure that they looked in the mirror at least three times. And so, the rouge examination was performed using a dot of rouge below the child's right eye. For their modified testing, the experimenter introduced a doll with a rouge spot nether its eye and asked the child to assist clean the doll. The experimenter would ask upward to three times before cleaning the doll themselves. The doll was then put away, and the mirror test performed using a rouge dot on the child'southward face. These modifications were shown to increase the number of self-recognisers.[89]

The results uncovered by this study at least suggest some problems with the classic mirror test; primarily, that information technology assumes that children volition recognize the dot of rouge as abnormal and attempt to examine or remove information technology. The classic examination may take produced false negatives, because the child'south recognition of the dot did not lead to them cleaning it. In their modified exam, in which the doll was cleaned commencement, they found a stronger human relationship between cleaning the doll's face and the kid cleaning its own face. The demonstration with the doll, postulated to demonstrate to the children what to exercise, may lead to more reliable confirmation of self-recognition.[89]

On a more general level, information technology remains debatable whether recognition of one's mirror image implies self-awareness.[90] Besides, the converse may too be fake—one may hold self-sensation, simply not present a positive result in a mirror test.

Robots [edit]

In 2012, early on steps were taken to brand a robot pass the mirror test.[91]

See likewise [edit]

  • Fauna consciousness
  • Cognitive tests
  • Confront perception
  • Cocky-agency

References [edit]

  1. ^ a b c d e Gallup, GG Jr. (1970). "Chimpanzees: Cocky recognition". Science. 167 (3914): 86–87. Bibcode:1970Sci...167...86G. doi:10.1126/science.167.3914.86. PMID 4982211. S2CID 145295899.
  2. ^ a b Bekoff, Marc (19 September 2002). "Beast reflections". Nature. 419 (6904): 255. doi:10.1038/419255a. PMID 12239547. S2CID 10070614.
  3. ^ "List of Animals That Have Passed the Mirror Examination". xv Apr 2015. Retrieved 23 Nov 2015.
  4. ^ Turner, Rebecca. "10 Animals with Self Awareness". Retrieved 23 November 2015.
  5. ^ Weiner, Jonathan (1 Dec 2006). "Darwin at the Zoo". Scientific American.
  6. ^ Carl Zimmer. The Descent of Man: The Curtailed Edition. excerpt available at http://carlzimmer.com/books/descentofman/excerpt.html Archived 29 February 2008 at the Wayback Machine.
  7. ^ Mitchell, R.W. (1995). "Evidence of dolphin cocky-recognition and the difficulties of interpretation". Consciousness and Knowledge. 4 (two): 229–234. doi:10.1006/ccog.1995.1029. PMID 8521261. S2CID 45507064.
  8. ^ a b c d Plotnik, J.M.; de Waal, F.B.G.; Reiss, D. (2006). "Self-recognition in an Asian elephant". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 103 (45): 17053–17057. Bibcode:2006PNAS..10317053P. doi:10.1073/pnas.0608062103. PMC1636577. PMID 17075063.
  9. ^ Shaffer, David (2009). Social and Personality Development. Belmont: Thomson Wadsworth. p. 172. ISBN978-0-495-60038-ane.
  10. ^ Povinelli, D. J. (2000). Folk physics for apes. The chimpanzee'south theory of how the globe works. Oxford: Oxford Academy Press.
  11. ^ a b c d Suddendorf, Thomas; Collier-Baker, Emma (7 May 2009). "The evolution of primate visual cocky-recognition: evidence of absence in bottom apes". Proceedings of the Imperial Guild B: Biological Sciences. 276 (1662): 1671–1677. doi:10.1098/rspb.2008.1754. PMC2660989. PMID 19324830.
  12. ^ a b c d Stanley Coren (2004). How Dogs Think . ISBN978-0-7432-2232-vii.
  13. ^ a b Archer, John (1992). Ethology and Human being Development. Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN978-0-389-20996-six.
  14. ^ Coren, Stanley (seven July 2011). "Does My Dog Recognize Himself in a Mirror?". Psychology Today.
  15. ^ Horowitz, Alexandra (2016). Being a dog : following the dog into a world of smell. New York: Scribner. ISBN9781476795997. OCLC 955777362.
  16. ^ Horowitz, Alexandra (2017). "Smelling themselves: Dogs investigate their own odors longer when modified in an "olfactory mirror" test". Behavioural Processes. 143C: 17–24. doi:10.1016/j.beproc.2017.08.001. PMID 28797909. S2CID 4929863.
  17. ^ "Tin Dogs Aroma Their 'Reflections'?". The Atlantic. 17 August 2017. Retrieved 4 July 2018.
  18. ^ Cazzolla Gatti, Roberto (2016). "Self-consciousness: across the looking-glass and what dogs found there". Ethology Ecology & Evolution. 28 (2): 232–240. doi:10.1080/03949370.2015.1102777. S2CID 217507938.
  19. ^ Couchman, J.J. (2011). "Self-agency in rhesus monkeys". Biology Letters. 8 (1): 39–41. doi:x.1098/rsbl.2011.0536. PMC3259954. PMID 21733868.
  20. ^ Anderson, J.R. (1984). "Monkeys with mirrors: Some questions for primate psychology". International Journal of Primatology. 5 (1): 81–98. doi:10.1007/bf02735149. S2CID 30888917.
  21. ^ Koerth-Bakery, Maggie (29 Nov 2010). "Kids (and animals) who fail classic mirror tests may still take sense of self". Scientific American . Retrieved 30 May 2013.
  22. ^ Wilke, Carolyn (21 February 2019). "The Mirror Exam Peers into the Workings of Fauna Minds". The Scientist.
  23. ^ a b Prior, H.; Schwarz, A.; Güntürkün, O. (2008). "Mirror-induced behavior in the magpie (Pica pica): Bear witness of cocky-recognition". PLOS Biology. 6 (8): e202. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0060202. PMC2517622. PMID 18715117.
  24. ^ Povinelli, D.J.; Rulf, A.B.; Landau, K.R.; Bierschwale, D.T. (1993). "Cocky-recognition in chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes): distribution, ontogenesis, and patterns of emergence". J. Comp. Psychol. 107 (four): 347–372. doi:10.1037/0735-7036.107.4.347. PMID 8112048.
  25. ^ Marten, Kenneth; Psarakos, Suchi (1994). "Prove of self-awareness in the bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus)". Self-Awareness in Animals and Humans. pp. 361–379. doi:ten.1017/CBO9780511565526.026. ISBN978-0-521-02591-1.
  26. ^ Reiss, Diana; Marino, Lori (viii May 2001). "Mirror self-recognition in the bottlenose dolphin: A case of cognitive convergence". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 98 (10): 5937–5942. Bibcode:2001PNAS...98.5937R. doi:10.1073/pnas.101086398. PMC33317. PMID 11331768.
  27. ^ a b Delfour, F; Marten, M (Apr 2001). "Mirror image processing in three marine mammal species: killer whales (Orcinus orca), faux killer whales (Pseudorca crassidens) and California body of water lions (Zalophus californianus)". Behavioural Processes. 53 (3): 181–190. doi:x.1016/s0376-6357(01)00134-6. PMID 11334706. S2CID 31124804.
  28. ^ Walraven, V.; van Elsacker, L.; Verheyen, R. (1995). "Reactions of a group of pygmy chimpanzees (Pan paniscus) to their mirror images: evidence of self-recognition". Primates. 36 (1): 145–150. doi:10.1007/bf02381922. S2CID 38985498.
  29. ^ Greg C. Westergaard; C. W. Hyatt (1994). "The responses of bonobos (Pan paniscus) to their mirror images: Evidence of cocky-recognition". Homo Evolution. 9 (iv): 273–279. doi:ten.1007/BF02435514. S2CID 85077838.
  30. ^ a b Suarez, Susan D.; Gallup, Gordon M. (February 1981). "Cocky-recognition in chimpanzees and orangutans, but non gorillas". Periodical of Human Evolution. 10 (2): 175–188. doi:10.1016/s0047-2484(81)80016-4.
  31. ^ a b Robert, S. (1986). "Ontogeny of mirror beliefs in two species of not bad apes". American Journal of Primatology. 10 (2): 109–117. doi:10.1002/ajp.1350100202. PMID 31979488. S2CID 85330986.
  32. ^ Miller, J. (2009). "Minding the animals: Ethology and the obsolescence of left humanism". American Chronicle . Retrieved 21 May 2009.
  33. ^ Povinelli, D.; de Veer, M.; Gallup Jr., Thou.; Theall, L.; van den Bos, R. (2003). "An eight-year longitudinal study of mirror self-recognition in chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes)". Neuropsychologia. 41 (ii): 229–334. doi:x.1016/S0028-3932(02)00153-seven. PMID 12459221. S2CID 9400080.
  34. ^ Calhoun, Suzanne; Thompson, Robert L. (1988). "Long-term retention of self-recognition by chimpanzees". American Periodical of Primatology. xv (4): 361–365. doi:10.1002/ajp.1350150409. PMID 31968884. S2CID 84381806.
  35. ^ Shillito, D.J.; Gallup, G.G.; Beck, B.B. (1999). "Factors affecting mirror behavior in western lowland gorillas, Gorilla gorilla". Beast Behaviour. 57 (5): 999–1004. doi:x.1006/anbe.1998.1062. PMID 10328785. S2CID 23093090.
  36. ^ Ledbetter, David H.; Basen, Jeffry A. (1982). "Failure to demonstrate self-recognition in gorillas". American Periodical of Primatology. 2 (3): 307–310. doi:ten.1002/ajp.1350020309. PMID 32192240. S2CID 84369215.
  37. ^ Nicholson, India S.; Gould, Jay E. (October 1995). "Mirror mediated object discrimination and self-directed behavior in a female gorilla". Primates. 36 (4): 515–521. doi:10.1007/bf02382873. S2CID 21450768.
  38. ^ Allen, Melinda R. (2007). Mirror self-recognition in a gorilla (Gorilla gorilla gorilla) (MS thesis). Florida International University. doi:x.25148/etd.fi13101588.
  39. ^ Posada, Sandra; Colell, Montserrat (May 2007). "Another gorilla (Gorilla gorilla gorilla) recognizes himself in a mirror". American Journal of Primatology. 69 (v): 576–583. doi:ten.1002/ajp.20355. PMID 17154375. S2CID 44854009.
  40. ^ a b Patterson, F. & Gordon, W. (1993). "The example for personhood of gorillas". In Cavalieri, P. & Vocalizer, P. (eds.). The Great Ape Projection. St. Martin's Griffin. pp. 58–77.
  41. ^ a b Kind, Amy (2 October 2015). Persons and Personal Identity. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN9781509500246.
  42. ^ Povinelli, Daniel J. (1989). "Failure to find self-recognition in Asian elephants (Elephas maximus) in contrast to their use of mirror cues to discover subconscious food". Journal of Comparative Psychology. 103 (ii): 122–131. doi:10.1037/0735-7036.103.two.122.
  43. ^ "Elephants' Jumbo Mirror Ability". BBC News. 31 October 2006. Retrieved 31 October 2007.
  44. ^ Solar, M.; Colmenero, J.; Pérez-Contreras, T.; Peralta-Sánchez, J. (2020). "Replication of the mirror mark test experiment in the magpie (Pica pica) does not provide prove of self-recognition". J Comp Psychol. 134 (4): 363–371. doi:10.1037/com0000223. PMID 32406720. S2CID 218636079.
  45. ^ Uchino, Emiko; Watanabe, Shigeru (1 Nov 2014). "Cocky-recognition in pigeons revisited". Journal of the Experimental Assay of Beliefs. 102 (3): 327–334. doi:ten.1002/jeab.112. PMID 25307108.
  46. ^ Epstein, L.; Skinner, R.P.; Skinner, B.F. (1981). ""Self-awareness" in the dove". Science. 212 (4495): 695–696. Bibcode:1981Sci...212..695E. doi:10.1126/science.212.4495.695. PMID 17739404.
  47. ^ This is video of ane such test
  48. ^ de Waal, Frans B. Thousand (19 August 2008). "The Thief in the Mirror". PLOS Biology. 6 (eight): e201. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0060201. PMC2517621. PMID 18715116.
  49. ^ "This tiny fish can recognize itself in a mirror. Is it self-aware?". Animals. vii Feb 2019. Retrieved 11 May 2020.
  50. ^ Ye, Yvaine. "A species of fish has passed the mirror exam for the first time". New Scientist . Retrieved 11 May 2020.
  51. ^ Kohda, Masanori; Hotta, Takashi; Takeyama, Tomohiro; Awata, Satoshi; Tanaka, Hirokazu; Asai, Jun-ya; Jordan, Alex Fifty. (2019). "If a fish can pass the mark test, what are the implications for consciousness and cocky-awareness testing in animals?". PLOS Biology. 17 (2): e3000021. doi:x.1371/periodical.pbio.3000021. PMC6366756. PMID 30730878.
  52. ^ De Waal, Frans B. Chiliad. (2019). "Fish, mirrors, and a gradualist perspective on self-awareness". PLOS Biology. 17 (ii): e3000112. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.3000112. PMC6366752. PMID 30730875.
  53. ^ Ferreira, Becky. "Fish Might Really Be Cocky-Aware, New Study Finds". Vice. Archived from the original on 18 Feb 2022. Retrieved nineteen Feb 2022.
  54. ^ Kohda, Masanori; Sogawa, Shumpei; Jordan, Alex 50.; Kubo, Naoki; Awata, Satoshi; Satoh, Shun; Kobayashi, Taiga; Fujita, Akane; Bshary, Redouan (17 Feb 2022). "Further evidence for the capacity of mirror cocky-recognition in cleaner fish and the significance of ecologically relevant marks". PLOS Biology. 20 (two): e3001529. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.3001529. ISSN 1545-7885. PMC8853551.
  55. ^ a b Ari, C.; D'Agostino, D.P. (2016). "Contingency checking and self-directed behaviors in giant manta rays: Practice elasmobranchs have self-sensation?". Journal of Ethology. 34 (two): 167–174. doi:10.1007/s10164-016-0462-z. S2CID 18628472.
  56. ^ a b Hill, H.Grand.; Webber, K.; Kemery, A.; Garcia, G.; Kuczaj, South.A. (2015). "Tin body of water lions' (Zalophus californianus) utilize mirrors to locate an object?". International Journal of Comparative Psychology. 28. doi:10.46867/ijcp.2015.28.00.08.
  57. ^ a b c d e f Ma, X.; Jin, Y.; Luo, B.; Zhang, G.; Wei, R.; Liu, D. (2015). "Behemothic pandas failed to show mirror self-recognition". Animal Cognition. 18 (3): 713–721. doi:10.1007/s10071-015-0838-4. PMID 25609263. S2CID 17801599.
  58. ^ "Does my Dog Recognize Himself in a mirror?". Psychology Today . Retrieved 15 January 2022.
  59. ^ "Tin a Cat Run into Itself in a Mirror?". Pets - The Nest . Retrieved 10 July 2021.
  60. ^ Rajala, A.Z.; Reininger, G.R.; Lancaster, K.One thousand.; Populin, Fifty.C. (2010). "Rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta) do recognize themselves in the mirror: Implications for the evolution of self-recognition". PLOS ONE. 5 (9): e12865. Bibcode:2010PLoSO...512865R. doi:10.1371/periodical.pone.0012865. PMC2947497. PMID 20927365.
  61. ^ Brandon, Grand. (29 September 2010). "Monkeys run into selves in mirror, open a butt of questions". Wired . Retrieved 1 Oct 2010.
  62. ^ Shaffer, Victoria A.; Renner, Michael J. (31 December 2000). "Black-and-White Colobus Monkeys (Colobus guereza) practise not Show Mirror Self-Recognition". International Journal of Comparative Psychology. 13 (3).
  63. ^ Roma, P.; Silberberg, A.; Huntsberry, Thousand.; Christensen, C.; Ruggiero, A; Suomi, South. (2007). "Mark tests for mirror self-recognition in Capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella) trained to touch marks". American Periodical of Primatology. 69 (9): 989–1000. doi:x.1002/ajp.20404. PMID 17253635. S2CID 41302656.
  64. ^ Hauser, Chiliad.; Miller, C.; Liu, K.; Gupta, R. (2001). "Cotton‐top tamarins (Saguinus oedipus) neglect to bear witness mirror‐guided cocky‐exploration". American Periodical of Primatology. 137 (December 2000): 131–137. doi:10.1002/1098-2345(200103)53:3<131::Help-AJP4>3.0.CO;2-X. PMID 11253848. S2CID 17250348.
  65. ^ Davies, E. (twenty September 2011). "Crows utilise mirrors to find nutrient". BBC Nature. Archived from the original on 21 September 2011. Retrieved 19 May 2012.
  66. ^ Soler, Chiliad.; Pérez-Contreras, T.; Peralta-Sánchez, J.One thousand. (2014). "Mirror-marking tests performed on jackdaws reveal potential methodological problems in the use of stickers in avian mark-exam studies". PLOS ONE. ix (1): e86193. Bibcode:2014PLoSO...986193S. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0086193. PMC3903501. PMID 24475085.
  67. ^ Kraft, F.50.; Forštová, T.; Utku Urhan, A.; Exnerová, A.; Brodin, A. (2017). "No testify for self-recognition in a pocket-size passerine, the great tit (Parus major) judged from the mark/mirror examination". Beast Cognition. 20 (half dozen): 1049–1057. doi:10.1007/s10071-017-1121-7. PMC5640729. PMID 28762195.
  68. ^ Hotta T, Komiyama S, Kohda M (2018). "A social cichlid fish failed to pass the marking test". Beast Cognition. 21 (1): 127–136. doi:10.1007/s10071-017-1146-y. PMID 29150813. S2CID 3950089.
  69. ^ Mather, Jennifer A.; Kuba, Michael J. (June 2013). "The cephalopod specialties: complex nervous system, learning, and cognition". Canadian Periodical of Zoology. 91 (half dozen): 431–449. doi:ten.1139/cjz-2013-0009.
  70. ^ Hyatt, C.Westward. (1998). "Responses of gibbons (Hylobates lar) to their mirror images". American Journal of Primatology. 45 (iii): 307–311. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1098-2345(1998)45:3<307::AID-AJP7>three.0.CO;2-#. PMID 9651653.
  71. ^ Ujhelyi, M.; Merker, B.; Buk, P.; Geissmann, T. (2000). "Observations on the behavior of gibbons (Hylobates leucogenys, H. gabriellae, and H. lar) in the presence of mirrors". Periodical of Comparative Psychology. 114 (iii): 253–262. doi:x.1037/0735-7036.114.3.253. PMID 10994841. S2CID 7350911.
  72. ^ Broom, D. Thousand.; Sena, H.; Moynihan, K. L. (2009). "Pigs acquire what a mirror image represents and utilize it to obtain data". Animal Behaviour. 78 (v): 1037–1041. doi:ten.1016/j.anbehav.2009.07.027. S2CID 53175225.
  73. ^ "Smart Pigs vs Kids | Extraordinary Animals | BBC World" – via youtube.com.
  74. ^ "Are Pigs Cocky-Enlightened?| The Private Life of Pigs | Real Wild" – via youtube.com.
  75. ^ Amanda Pachniewska (2016). "List of Animals That Have Passed the Mirror Test". Animalcognition.org.
  76. ^ Newport, Cait; Wallis, Guy; Reshitnyk, Yarema; Siebeck, Ulrike E. (2016). "Discrimination of human faces past archerfish (Toxotes chatareus)". Scientific Reports. 6: 27523. Bibcode:2016NatSR...627523N. doi:x.1038/srep27523. PMC4895153. PMID 27272551.
  77. ^ Bittel, Jason (xviii Oct 2018). "H2o-spitting fish can identify and remember human faces". National Geographic.
  78. ^ a b c Beulah Amsterdam (1972). "Mirror self-paradigm reactions before age ii". Developmental Psychobiology. 5 (4): 297–305. doi:10.1002/dev.420050403. PMID 4679817.
  79. ^ a b Lewis, M.; Brooks-Gunn, J. (1979). Social cognition and the acquisition of self . New York: Plenum Press. p. 296. ISBN978-0-306-40232-6.
  80. ^ a b Priel, Beatrice; de Schonen, Scania (1986). "Self-Recognition: A Study of a Population without Mirrors". Journal of Experimental Child Psychology. 41 (two): 237–250. doi:10.1016/0022-0965(86)90038-10. PMID 3701250.
  81. ^ a b Sedikides, C. & Spencer, Due south.J. (Eds.) (2007). The Self. New York: Psychology Press
  82. ^ Heidi Keller; Relindis Yovsi; Joern Borke; Joscha Kärtner; Henning Jensen; Zaira Papaligoura (2004). "Developmental Consequences of Early Parenting Experiences: Cocky-Recognition and Self-Regulation in Three Cultural Communities". Child Development. 75 (6): 1745–1760. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2004.00814.ten. PMID 15566377. S2CID 601275.
  83. ^ Bertenthal, Bennett I.; Fischer, Kurt W. (1978). "Development of Self-Recognition in the Infant". Developmental Psychology. 14: 44–50. CiteSeerX10.ane.one.550.1903. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.fourteen.ane.44.
  84. ^ Amsterdam B (1972). "Mirror self-paradigm reactions before age 2". Dev Psychobiol. 5 (4): 297–305. doi:10.1002/dev.420050403. PMID 4679817.
  85. ^ Brown, Jonathon (iii June 2014). Self-awareness in the first few weeks of life. ISBN9781136872006 . Retrieved 4 November 2017.
  86. ^ Social Psychology, sixth Edition p. 68-69
  87. ^ "Consciousness and the Symbolic Universe". ulm.edu.
  88. ^ Lacan, J., Some reflections on the Ego in Écrits, org. published 1949.
  89. ^ a b c d Asendorpf, J.B.; Warkentin, V.; Baudonniere, P. (1996). "Self-sensation and other-awareness Ii: Mirror self-recognition, social contingency awareness, and synchronic faux". Developmental Psychology. 32 (two): 313–321. CiteSeerX10.1.1.524.8664. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.32.2.313. S2CID 21762291.
  90. ^ Muth, Felicity (twenty September 2011). "Crows take a expect in the mirror". Scientific American Blog Network.
  91. ^ "Robot learns to recognize itself". BBC News. 23 August 2012.

External links [edit]

  • List of animals who passed the mirror test and promising candidates on animalcognition.org
  • The Earth First Self-Aware Robot and the Success of Mirror Paradigm Noesis (Lecture at the Karlsruhe University and the Munich Academy, Federal republic of germany), viii Nov 2006.
  • Elephants laissez passer mirror test of self-awareness (The Guardian)
  • Elephants' jumbo mirror ability (BBC News)
  • Plotnik, Joshua M.; Waal, Frans B. M. de; Reiss, Diana (7 Nov 2006). "Self-recognition in an Asian elephant". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 103 (45): 17053–17057. doi:x.1073/pnas.0608062103. PMC1636577. PMID 17075063.
  • Elephants see themselves in the mirror (Newscientist.com with video)
  • Tin a robot pass the mirror exam? – Raúl Arrabales Moreno, 2010-01-08
  • Baragli, Paolo; Scopa, Chiara; Maglieri, Veronica; Palagi, Elisabetta (2021). "If horses had toes: demonstrating mirror cocky recognition at group level in Equus caballus". Animal Cognition. 24 (5): 1099–1108. doi:10.1007/s10071-021-01502-7. PMC8360890. PMID 33713273.

lockhartagnat1998.blogspot.com

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_test

Post a Comment for "Baby Confident Pigs 78 Best Images of Animals"