@article {VokJamTanSeaAll2018,
	title = {A visual familiarity account of evidence for orthographic processing in pigeons \emph(Columbia livia): A reply to Scarf, Corballis, G{\"u}nt{\"u}rk{\"u}n, and Colombo (2017)},
	journal = {Animal Cognition},
	volume = {21},
	number = {3},
	year = {2018},
	month = {May},
	pages = {425{\textendash}431},
	abstract = {Scarf et al. (Proc Natl Acad Sci 113(40):11272{\textendash}11276, 2016) demonstrated that pigeons, as with baboons (Grainger et al. in Science 336(6078):245{\textendash}248, 2012; Ziegler in Psychol Sci. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612474322 , 2013), can be trained to display several behavioural hallmarks of human orthographic processing. But, Vokey and Jamieson (Psychol Sci 25(4):991{\textendash}996, 2014) demonstrated that a standard, autoassociative neural network model of memory applied to pixel maps of the words and nonwords reproduces all of those results. In a subsequent report, Scarf et al. (Anim Cognit 20(5):999{\textendash}1002, 2017) demonstrated that pigeons can reproduce one more marker of human orthographic processing: the ability to discriminate visually presented four-letter words from their mirror-reversed counterparts (e.g. {\textquoteleft}{\textquoteleft}LEFT{\textquoteright}{\textquoteright} vs. {\textquoteleft}{\textquoteleft} {\textquoteright}{\textquoteright}). The current report shows that the model of Vokey and Jamieson (2014) reproduces the results of Scarf et al. (2017) and reinforces the original argument: the recent results thought to support a conclusion of orthographic processing in pigeons and baboons are consistent with but do not force that conclusion.},
	issn = {1435-9456},
	doi = {10.1007/s10071-018-1166-2},
	url = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-018-1166-2},
	author = {Vokey, John R. and Jamieson, Randall K. and Tangen, Jason M. and Searston, Rachel A. and Allen, Scott W.}
}
