Crows Can Evaluate Visual Info Twice As Fast As Mammals (arstechnica.com) 27
Researchers at the University of Tubingen found that crows can process visual information and make decisions roughly twice as fast as monkeys or humans without sacrificing accuracy. They suspect birds' densely packed neurons and higher body temperatures contribute to their faster processing, though the study involved only two crows. Ars Technica reports: [Andreas Nieder, a neurobiologist at the University of Tubingen and his colleague Philipp Schmidbauer] put two hand-raised crows in front of a touch-sensitive monitor showing a cloud of white dots on black, with some fraction of them drifting coherently left or right or up or down. The birds' job was to report the overall direction by pecking one of the targets that flanked the display. Correct answers earned them a mealworm. "We intentionally wanted to have exactly the same random-dot motion task," Nieder said. "The only difference was that the crows had to peck to indicate their decision, whereas monkeys were indicating by making an eye movement."
The researchers varied how many dots moved together, ranging from 81 percent of the dots coherently moving together, which is trivially easy to determine, down to 3 percent, which is barely distinguishable from noise. They also included a zero percent condition, in which there was no correct answer. Both birds scored better than chance, even when only three percent of the dots were moving. While the crows worked at the task, the team recorded from 248 neurons in the NCL (nidopallium caudolaterale) -- a region at the top of the avian processing hierarchy that is widely regarded as the functional counterpart of the primate prefrontal cortex, despite being built differently.
Birds and mammals parted evolutionary ways more than 360 million years ago, and bird brains evolved a different architecture. The mammalian cortex is arranged as stacked sheets of cells, while the equivalent tissue in a bird is organized into dense clusters, with no layering at all. This alternative architecture, Nieder's study found, proved faster. Measured from the moment that the dots appeared to the moment the bird's head started turning to peck at the button, the crows averaged 235 milliseconds. In closely matched versions of the task, monkeys took roughly 410, 490, and 600 milliseconds in three studies. The obvious question was whether the birds simply sacrificed accuracy for speed, but it turned out they did not. The research has been published in the journal Science.
The researchers varied how many dots moved together, ranging from 81 percent of the dots coherently moving together, which is trivially easy to determine, down to 3 percent, which is barely distinguishable from noise. They also included a zero percent condition, in which there was no correct answer. Both birds scored better than chance, even when only three percent of the dots were moving. While the crows worked at the task, the team recorded from 248 neurons in the NCL (nidopallium caudolaterale) -- a region at the top of the avian processing hierarchy that is widely regarded as the functional counterpart of the primate prefrontal cortex, despite being built differently.
Birds and mammals parted evolutionary ways more than 360 million years ago, and bird brains evolved a different architecture. The mammalian cortex is arranged as stacked sheets of cells, while the equivalent tissue in a bird is organized into dense clusters, with no layering at all. This alternative architecture, Nieder's study found, proved faster. Measured from the moment that the dots appeared to the moment the bird's head started turning to peck at the button, the crows averaged 235 milliseconds. In closely matched versions of the task, monkeys took roughly 410, 490, and 600 milliseconds in three studies. The obvious question was whether the birds simply sacrificed accuracy for speed, but it turned out they did not. The research has been published in the journal Science.
Make sense (Score:5, Insightful)
Since it's hard to stop and evaluate a situation mid flight.
Re: Make sense (Score:5, Funny)
They might make good rideshare drivers. This has a lot of business potential for a startup. A sort of crow-share service, we would have to find some payment current that is small and shiny, but worthless. Not unlike how NFTs attract humans.
Re: (Score:2)
You can only distract a crow with a shiny once in awhile.
But you can earn loyalty every day with payments of dried papaya.
Not worthless, but pretty cheap.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Can't watch crows from the basement kiddo, you might have to gird your loins and head Outside to look over the fence.
Crows do not sleep in flight. Surface Dwellers know where they sleep. If you happen to see one, you should ask about it.
But... watch out for mutants.
Next thing⦠(Score:2)
â¦is that will be telling us peregrine falcons evaluate visual info even faster!
Dogs and cats may react faster than crows? (Score:2)
Monkeys are slightly faster than humans at visual processing: ... The mean human reaction time to touch, auditory, and visual stimuli is 150 milliseconds, 170 milliseconds, and 250 milliseconds, respectively."
https://monkeys.alloftheanimal... [alloftheanimals.com]
"The average [monkey] visual reaction time is around 200ms to 300ms, with a median of around 215ms.
But dogs are much faster: ..
https://humanbenchmark.me/test... [humanbenchmark.me]
"The table below shows approximate response times to visual or tactile stimuli, drawn from published research:
Let's try it (Score:4, Interesting)
Most neuron mimicking AIs have their nodes arranged in sheets like mammalian brains, with an input layer, an output layer, and a few in between. Perhaps we should try bird brain architectures instead.
Re: Let's try it (Score:4, Insightful)
AI is already worrying enough. Not sure i want ones that think like therapod dinosaurs.
In short ... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
As smart as a bird brain.
Re:In short ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Birds are pretty smart, full stop. They're the only group that has a method of creating and using their own hooked tools (Caledonian Crow) other than humans.
They are excellent problem solvers overall. Given their size relative to comparative intellects (Crows are comparable in intellect to monkeys and gorillas), they're absolute marvels.
crows reproduce asexually! (Score:2, Funny)
Researchers at the University of Toboggan found that crows reproduce asexually. They were able to deduce this because 100% of crows are male. Though the study involved only two crows.
Re: crows reproduce asexually! (Score:2)
Two crows and one non-bird subject, also one of the researchers, who is generally kind of slow.
Cats .. (Score:3)
I always keep this in mind when getting into arguments over monitor refresh rates. The average person cannot percieve motion at the rates some people claim. But that may be incorrect for those with lowered prefrontal cortex functions.
I fully well expect this to be modded Troll. Possibly within a few milliseconds.
Re: (Score:3)
I fully well expect this to be modded Troll. Possibly within a few milliseconds.
If I had mod points, I would -- just to give you the satisfaction of being right. I'm such a generous soul.
Re: (Score:2)
never seen such a thing again.
well, i saw a fox playing with a cat too, but that's not quite the same.
Re: (Score:2)
If you see that, they are usually friends.
Knowing each other long time.
I saw a raven stealing food from a bald eagle. Pulling his tail feathers, the eagle did not even get angry. He just stepped back after pull #3 or #4 and let the Raven eat the rest of the fish.
Re: (Score:2)
When you've got to evade a threat or pounce on your dinner,
That would explain all the slow drivers on the road. There is not threat to evade because they are the threat everyone else is trying to evade.
As for dinner, these drivers have it delivered. No poucing needed.
Re: (Score:2)
I always keep this in mind when getting into arguments over monitor refresh rates. The average person cannot percieve motion at the rates some people claim.
The monitor refresh rate is associated to mouse curser aka cross hair.
And yes, we can perceive "motion of an enemy" much better if the refresh rate is higher.
Does a movie look better if the refresh rate is higher? Nope.
But if we play a game where my game engine is at 200 Hz and yours is at 60Hz: I kill you one shot every time I spot you.
Re:Cats .. (Score:4, Insightful)
The monitor refresh rate is associated to mouse curser aka cross hair.
So, add game software latency to that refresh figure. It isn't a 200/60 difference anymore. It's perhaps a few percent. Or not at all if the game engine incorporates timing to keep game playing equalized.
Anecdote: Back in "the old days", a display card manufacturer came out with a cutting edge 60 Hz card in a world of 45 Hz hardware. Game players were elated. "It's so much better. No more headaches due to flicker. Etc." Except that it was discovered that the display driver configuration panel loaded the same parameters for 45 Hz and 60 Hz. Discovered, I think, by people configuring Linux X11 displays with hand-edited XF86Config files. Suddenly, the gaming BBSs were full of people complaining of the same headaches. Pretty much the same as the guy who "cured" an office co-workers WiFi sensitivity by covering the flashing lights on the router. And, "My guitar amp goes to eleven."
You are faster because the display driver box says 200 Hz.
Re: (Score:2)
This has been blind tested and there is significant advantage at higher fps (at least in fast paced shooters). Although with diminishing returns.
The benefit you get by going from 60 to 120hz is significantly more than going from 120 to 240hz. Which is to be expected when in the first switch you're saving 8msec and the second 4msec.
You are faster because the display driver box says 200 Hz.
You are the same speed, but your display showed the enemy a fraction of a second earlier, even if your reaction time is the same, your action is earlier.
Re: (Score:2)
The guitar amp that went to 11 was designed such that 1, 5, 10 all meant the same thing as regular amps, and 11 was overdriven to produce distortion.
The reason was that the only other way to get distortion at the time was with a modified amp. Which was fine in the studio, but for touring bands that doesn't work because you have to have a bunch of amps that will all sound the same with the same settings.
You were going good, and then you repeated some false bullshit in a pejorative voice that you merely heard
Re: (Score:2)
Distortion was invented (discovered) by a touring blues bass guitarist who knocked an output tube loose. One half of a push-pull amp stage.
Re: (Score:2)
If you had a 2 or 3 yards wide TV monitor, with 24Hz refresh rate.
Watching tennis would be a pain.
The ball would jump in 5 inch (or more) jumps from left to right, and back.
With 120Hz or more, the ball flies in a curved, but connected, line.
The old mantra: a human eye can not distinguish reality from a 24Hz frame rate, is only true, if nothing particular interesting is happening in the 24Hz frame rate.
In a computer game, you anticipate where to shot at, for example. And that is based on your "perception". I
Insult no more! (Score:2)
Re: Two Crows. (Score:2)