Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Mirror test

The mirror self-recognition test (MSR), commonly known as the mirror test or mark test, is a behavioral assay developed to evaluate whether non-human animals exhibit self-recognition, interpreted as a potential indicator of self-awareness or metacognition.^[1] In the standard procedure, an animal is briefly anesthetized and marked with an odorless, non-irritating dye on a body part (typically the face) that is visible only via reflection; upon recovery and mirror exposure, self-recognition is inferred if the subject investigates the mark on its own body—such as by touching or grooming it—rather than reacting to the reflection as a conspecific or ignoring it.^[1]^[2] Introduced by psychologist Gordon G. Gallup Jr. in 1970, the test first demonstrated positive results in chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), where prolonged mirror exposure led to self-directed behaviors toward dye marks, suggesting they distinguished their reflection from others.^[1] This breakthrough established MSR as a benchmark for studying cognitive capacities across species, with subsequent adaptations applied to diverse taxa, including prolonged exposure phases to habituate subjects to the mirror before marking.^[3] Over decades, the test has revealed self-recognition in a select group of animals, primarily great apes like orangutans (Pongo spp.), gorillas (Gorilla gorilla), and bonobos (Pan paniscus), as well as humans beginning around 15–24 months of age.^[4]^[5] Beyond primates, robust evidence supports passage in non-primate mammals such as bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus), which spontaneously touch marks on their bodies after mirror exposure, and evidence of passage in Asian elephants (Elephas maximus), though results are mixed with only one individual clearly passing in the key study by using its trunk to explore head marks.^[3]^[4] More recently, a 2023 study found that laboratory mice (Mus musculus) passed using a tactile mark on the forehead.^[6] Avian species like the Eurasian magpie (Pica pica) have also passed by removing stickers from under their wings, marking the first non-mammalian success in 2008.^[7] More recent findings include cleaner wrasse fish (Labroides dimidiatus), which remove marks from their throats after mirror training, though this remains debated due to methodological variations.^[8]^[5] Rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta) can pass with extensive video-mirror training, indicating that self-recognition may be latent but requires learning in some lineages.^[2] While MSR success is often equated with advanced cognition, the test has faced criticisms for its potential anthropocentric bias, as it prioritizes visual self-perception and may overlook self-awareness in species reliant on other senses like olfaction or in social contexts.^[2] Failures in species such as most monkeys, dogs, and cats do not conclusively rule out self-awareness, and alternative paradigms—like body awareness tasks or subjective value assessments—have been proposed to broaden the evaluation.^[9] Nonetheless, the mirror test remains a foundational tool in comparative psychology, informing debates on the evolutionary origins of consciousness and empathy in animals.^[10]

Introduction and Methodology

Definition and Procedure

The mirror test, also known as the mirror self-recognition (MSR) test, is a behavioral assay designed to evaluate an individual's ability to visually recognize itself in a reflection, distinguishing self from others. Developed by psychologist Gordon G. Gallup Jr. in 1970, the test probes for evidence of self-awareness by observing whether a subject treats its mirror image as a representation of itself rather than an unfamiliar conspecific. The standard procedure consists of two main phases: habituation and the mark test. In the habituation phase, the subject is given extended exposure to its reflection in a mirror, typically over several days, to reduce initial social reactions such as aggression, avoidance, or affiliation directed toward the image as if it were another individual. Once habituated, the subject is briefly anesthetized, and an odorless, non-irritating mark—such as a spot of dye or paint—is applied to a body part that is visible only in the mirror (e.g., the forehead or ear in primates). After recovery, the subject is re-exposed to the mirror, and its behavior is systematically observed and recorded, often via video, for a set period (e.g., 5-10 minutes).^[11] Self-recognition is scored based on spontaneous, self-directed behaviors toward the mark, such as visually orienting to it, touching, rubbing, or attempting to remove it upon seeing the reflection, without prior training or cueing. In contrast, failure is indicated by persistent social behaviors toward the image (e.g., threats or grooming attempts directed at the reflection) or indifference to the mark, suggesting the subject does not associate the reflection with itself. Adaptations of the mark test have been developed for diverse species to account for sensory or anatomical differences. For instance, in non-mammalian animals like birds or fish, where visual cues may interact with other modalities, variations include using adhesive stickers on feathers or scales instead of dye, or substituting mirrors with video recordings of the marked subject to elicit self-directed responses.^[12] These modifications maintain the core principle of assessing contingency between the self and its representation while tailoring the method to species-specific perceptual capabilities.^[12]

Historical Development

The mirror test, also known as the mirror self-recognition (MSR) test, originated in 1970 when psychologist Gordon G. Gallup Jr. developed it during behavioral studies on chimpanzees at the Delta Regional Primate Research Center in Louisiana, affiliated with Tulane University.^[1] In his seminal experiment, Gallup anesthetized four young chimpanzees, applied odorless, non-irritating red dye marks to areas of their bodies (such as the eyebrow ridge and ear) that were visible only via reflection, and then provided extended mirror exposure over several days before reintroducing the mirror post-anesthesia. The chimpanzees' subsequent self-directed behaviors, such as touching the marks while gazing into the mirror without tactile cues, indicated recognition of their reflected images as themselves, marking the first empirical demonstration of visual self-recognition in non-human animals.^[1] In the 1970s, Gallup and his collaborators expanded the protocol to other great apes, testing orangutans, gorillas, and gibbons to explore phylogenetic patterns of self-recognition. Orangutans demonstrated similar self-directed responses to marks, passing the test shortly after chimpanzees, while gorillas showed inconsistent results, often failing due to potential social or perceptual factors. These early extensions established the test as a benchmark for primate cognition, with Gallup's ongoing research refining criteria for interpreting contingent behaviors like mirror-guided exploration.^[13] By the early 1970s, the method was adapted for human development; Beulah Amsterdam applied a version to infants aged 3 to 24 months, observing that self-recognition emerged around 18 months, aligning with broader milestones in theory of mind. Influential reviews by researchers like Mariska I. M. de Veer in the 1990s further scrutinized methodological variations, such as exposure duration and mark placement, to distinguish true self-recognition from learned responses in primates like gorillas. Key milestones in the 1990s and 2000s broadened the test beyond mammals, introducing applications to birds and prompting protocol adjustments. Although early attempts with pigeons in the 1980s involved training to elicit mark-directed behaviors, genuine self-recognition was first evidenced in Eurasian magpies in 2008 by ethologist Helmut Prior and colleagues, who used yellow stickers on neck feathers and observed two of five birds removing marks only upon mirror exposure, suggesting independent evolution of this capacity in corvids. The 2010s saw adaptations for aquatic species, with cleaner wrasse fish (Labroides dimidiatus) passing a modified mark test in 2019 through scraping behaviors targeted at blue marks under anesthesia, verified via extensive mirror habituation to rule out aggression. Preliminary explorations in invertebrates, such as ants in 2015, used video-recorded self-images and cleaning responses to marks, though results remain debated due to simpler sensory systems. Post-2020 refinements have shifted toward less invasive protocols to address ethical concerns and perceptual biases, incorporating digital and virtual elements. Studies on cleaner wrasse now employ photographs of the fish's own face alongside mirrors, confirming self-face recognition without physical marks and minimizing anesthesia risks.^[8] Hidden-mark variants, using inert dyes or temporary alterations detectable only visually, have evolved to counter criticisms of olfactory cues. Recent 2024-2025 research on cleaner wrasse has further shown rapid acquisition of mirror self-recognition (within 12-50 minutes of exposure) and explored its evolutionary origins, reinforcing the test's applicability to fish while highlighting ongoing methodological debates.^[5]^[14] Gallup's continued advocacy has emphasized these updates, ensuring the test's robustness in probing self-awareness evolution.

Theoretical Foundations

Implications for Self-Awareness

Passing the mirror self-recognition (MSR) test is interpreted as evidence of metacognition, where an individual can reflect on its own mental states, and a rudimentary theory of mind, enabling distinction between self and others.^[15] This capacity aligns with higher-order consciousness in philosophy of mind, echoing Descartes' cogito ergo sum as a foundation for self-reflective awareness and Nagel's inquiry into subjective experience, suggesting that self-recognition implies an "I" capable of introspection beyond mere perception.^[16] In scientific terms, MSR signifies the ability to become the object of one's own attention, facilitating mentalistic attributions to oneself.^[17] From an evolutionary psychology perspective, self-recognition via the mirror test serves as a marker for complex social intelligence, emerging in species navigating intricate group dynamics where understanding others' perspectives enhances survival and cooperation.^[18] This connection underscores how self-awareness likely co-evolved with sociality, as evidenced by higher MSR success rates in gregarious species compared to solitary ones, supporting the social intelligence hypothesis that cognitive advancements like self-recognition arise from selective pressures in social environments.^[19] Gallup's hypothesis further integrates MSR with prosocial behaviors, positing that self-recognition correlates with empathy and altruism in social species, as the self-other distinction enables perspective-taking and targeted helping.^[20] Empirical support includes observations in primates and cetaceans, where MSR-positive individuals exhibit consolation and prosocial interventions, linking self-awareness to the evolution of empathy from emotional contagion to cognitive forms.^[21] However, passing the mirror test does not equate to full human-like consciousness; it indicates a spectrum of self-awareness rather than comprehensive sentience, limited to bodily self-recognition without necessarily encompassing narrative or autobiographical elements.^[15] Recent theoretical advances post-2020 emphasize multiple levels of self-awareness, distinguishing bodily self-consciousness—assessed by MSR through visual-proprioceptive integration—from higher autobiographical self, which involves narrative memory and future-oriented cognition, suggesting a hierarchical model where mirror success represents an intermediate stage.^[22] As of November 2025, research on cleaner wrasse passing the MSR with ecologically relevant marks proposes that private self-awareness may have originated in early vertebrate ancestors, expanding its evolutionary scope beyond highly social mammals and birds.^[23]

Alternative Explanations

One prominent alternative explanation posits that animals passing the mirror test may be responding to the contingency between their own movements and the reflected image through associative learning, rather than recognizing the reflection as a representation of the self. This view suggests that repeated exposure allows subjects to associate self-generated actions with the mirror's correlated responses, leading to self-directed behaviors like mark touching without implying self-awareness.^[24] Another interpretation frames mark removal as tool-use or problem-solving, where the mirror serves as an aid to locate and eliminate an irritant or target on the body, independent of self-concept. A seminal demonstration of this came in a 1981 experiment with pigeons, in which birds were first conditioned to peck a blue dot on their breast visible only via mirror to obtain food rewards; upon later marking with an actual blue dot, the pigeons used the mirror to locate and remove it, mimicking self-recognition through training rather than innate understanding.^[25] Differences in mirror exposure across species or individuals can also account for passing behaviors, as prior familiarity with reflections may enable learned responses that simulate self-recognition without underlying metacognition. For example, rhesus macaques, which typically fail the test, exhibited mark-directed behaviors after video-training tasks that familiarized them with using reflections to identify targets on their bodies, suggesting that such abilities can emerge from extended exposure rather than an inherent trait.^[2] Empirical evidence further supports these alternatives, as various training protocols have induced "passing" in animals without evidence of genuine self-recognition; the pigeon study exemplifies how associative conditioning can produce test-compliant actions, while similar approaches in other species underscore the role of environmental learning over evolved self-awareness.^[26]

Criticisms and Limitations

Perceptual Challenges

One significant perceptual challenge in the mirror test arises from species-specific visual limitations, which can prevent animals from detecting the applied mark even if self-recognition occurs. Many animals possess dichromatic or tetrachromatic vision differing from human trichromatic capabilities, potentially rendering standard marks (e.g., red paint) invisible or inconspicuous; certain animals with visual spectra differing from humans may overlook marks placed on their bodies.^[27] Similarly, animals with restricted visual fields or lower acuity, such as certain birds or mammals, might fail to perceive the mark on non-facial areas due to anatomical constraints rather than a lack of self-awareness.^[28] These biases highlight how the test's reliance on human-centric visual cues can produce false negatives across taxa. Olfactory interference further complicates the mirror test for scent-dominant species, particularly mammals that prioritize smell over sight. In such animals, the absence of a conspecific odor from the mirror image may lead to dismissal of the reflection as non-threatening or irrelevant, causing them to ignore visual discrepancies like the mark despite potential self-recognition.^[29] This sensory mismatch underscores the test's bias toward visual processing, as olfactory cues often override or suppress visual responses in species like dogs or wolves, where smell guides social and environmental interpretation.^[30] Insufficient habituation to mirrors exacerbates perceptual challenges in neophobic species, where initial fear or avoidance of the novel stimulus hinders accurate assessment of self-recognition. Animals exhibiting strong neophobia, such as certain corvids or primates, may treat the mirror as a threat during short exposure periods, leading to avoidance behaviors mistaken for recognition failure; extended group habituation sessions have been shown to mitigate this by reducing anxiety and promoting exploration.^[31] In cases like Eurasian jays, neophobia combines with sensory preferences to limit engagement, emphasizing the need for prolonged acclimation to isolate perceptual responses from fear-driven ones. Species-specific adaptations, such as those in cephalopods, introduce additional perceptual ambiguities in the mirror test. Octopuses, for example, may respond to mirrors with body pattern changes resembling camouflage rather than self-directed mark removal, potentially mimicking awareness without true recognition; observed unilateral patterns and exploratory behaviors suggest reflexive visual processing tied to threat assessment or environmental blending.^[32] These adaptations complicate interpretation, as tactile or proprioceptive cues from marks can elicit responses independently of mirrors, blurring the line between perceptual detection and self-awareness. To address these perceptual challenges, researchers have proposed species-tailored modifications, including multi-sensory tests that incorporate olfactory or tactile elements. The "olfactory mirror" test, for instance, presents self- versus other-odors to smell-reliant mammals, bypassing visual biases and revealing differential investigation of self-scents in species like dogs.^[29] Similarly, tactile marks—such as raised or scented stimuli—enable self-localization in visually impaired or non-visual species, as demonstrated in infant studies where touch facilitated reaching toward mirrored marks; multi-sensory integrations, combining visual, tactile, and olfactory cues, have shown promise in equines by promoting association of the reflection with bodily sensations.^[33] These adaptations aim to create ecologically valid assessments aligned with diverse sensory ecologies.

Behavioral Motivations

In gregarious species, social motivations can lead animals to interpret their mirror reflection as a conspecific, prompting aggressive or affiliative behaviors that mimic or mask true self-recognition. For instance, chimpanzees initially direct social gestures, threats, or play toward the mirror image, treating it as another individual in their group before transitioning to self-directed exploration, as observed in Gallup's foundational studies on primates. This response is driven by the species' need for social bonding or territorial defense, potentially delaying recognition of the reflection as self even if the cognitive capacity exists.^[18] Similar patterns occur in canids; wolves and dogs often exhibit territorial barking or investigative sniffing toward mirrors, interpreting the image as an intruder rather than a self-representation. Conversely, solitary or low-curiosity species frequently fail the mirror test due to disinterest rather than a lack of self-awareness, as they ignore the reflection entirely without engaging in investigation. Cats, tigers, and pumas—animals that interact minimally outside of mating—show little to no response to mirrors, avoiding prolonged exposure and thus never attempting to examine marks on their bodies.^[18] This behavioral disengagement stems from their solitary lifestyles, where social cues from conspecifics are rare, reducing the motivational drive to respond to unfamiliar visual stimuli like a mirror image. Exploratory biases further complicate interpretations, as highly curious individuals may investigate novel marks on their bodies out of general inquisitiveness rather than self-recognition, coincidentally passing the test without understanding the reflection's relation to themselves. In primates, follow-up experiments by Gallup demonstrated that rhesus monkeys, after extended mirror exposure, began touching marks but only after training reinforced exploratory touching, suggesting motivation and familiarity influenced outcomes more than innate self-awareness.^[2] This highlights how innate curiosity can produce self-directed behaviors that resemble recognition but may not indicate a conceptual understanding of self. Age and prior experience also modulate motivation, with juveniles often lacking the drive to investigate mirrors or marks, leading to skewed failure rates across species. Younger chimpanzees and dolphins exhibit reduced engagement with mirrors compared to adults, requiring repeated exposures to build interest before displaying potential self-recognition behaviors.^[2] In bottlenose dolphins, 2010s research revealed that play-oriented investigations of mirrors emerge earlier in juveniles than in humans or great apes, but initial disinterest in marks wanes with age and experience, underscoring how developmental stages affect motivational responses.^[34]

Test Ambiguities

One significant ambiguity in the mirror self-recognition (MSR) test arises from subjectivity in scoring self-directed behaviors, where researchers must interpret whether actions like glancing at a mark or fully touching it qualify as evidence of recognition. Variability in defining these criteria leads to inconsistent results across studies; for instance, methodological assessments of mark test protocols in gorillas revealed scores ranging from 2 to 10 out of 15, reflecting differences in how behaviors are categorized and quantified.^[11] This subjectivity is compounded by reliance on observational judgments without standardized thresholds, potentially inflating or underestimating self-recognition in species with subtle responses.^[35] Environmental and rearing confounds further complicate test interpretation, as human-influenced conditions can alter natural responses to mirrors. Animals raised in captivity with frequent mirror exposure, such as pet dogs or lab-reared primates, often show habituated behaviors that mimic recognition but may not reflect innate self-awareness, whereas wild individuals typically exhibit more social or agonistic reactions initially.^[11] In gorillas, for example, prior mirror exposure and rearing history significantly influence performance, with human-reared subjects more likely to pass due to familiarity rather than cognitive capacity.^[11] Recent 2025 field studies on wild chimpanzees using in-situ mark tests have shown failures without extensive training, further emphasizing how ecological context and lack of prior exposure can confound results and question the test's assessment of innate self-awareness.^[36] These factors introduce bias, as tests on domesticated or enriched animals may overestimate self-recognition prevalence compared to ecologically valid settings.^[37] The test is also prone to false positives and negatives, undermining its reliability as a standalone measure. False positives occur when training induces mirror-guided behaviors without true self-recognition; in a seminal 1981 study, pigeons were conditioned through operant procedures to use mirrors to locate and remove marks on their bodies, passing a modified test despite lacking spontaneous recognition.^[25] Conversely, false negatives can arise from innate traits like camouflage, where animals fail to react to marks that blend with their natural coloration, masking potential self-awareness. In cleaner wrasse fish, ecologically irrelevant or inconspicuous marks led to non-responses, whereas salient, parasite-mimicking marks elicited self-directed actions, highlighting how mark visibility affects outcomes.^[38] Inter-species comparability poses additional challenges, as the test's design assumes manipulable body parts and visual-motor coordination that vary widely across taxa. Standardizing the procedure is difficult for species with divergent body plans, such as insects lacking limbs for mark removal; attempts to adapt the test for honeybees, for example, rely on indirect measures like grooming responses, but these adaptations deviate from the classic protocol, complicating cross-taxa comparisons.^[32] A 2025 study on honeybees further illustrates these ambiguities, using modified grooming assays that highlight the challenges of homologous actions in invertebrates.^[39] Invertebrates like paper wasps show mirror-induced behaviors, yet the absence of homologous actions to primate touching prevents direct equivalence, leading to interpretive inconsistencies. Recent critiques since 2020 emphasize the need for composite assessments to address these ambiguities, advocating integration of the mirror test with other self-recognition assays like body awareness tasks. Studies on cleaner fish demonstrate that MSR passers accurately estimate their body size in spatial navigation tasks, suggesting a mental body schema that complements mirror results and provides a more robust indicator of self-representation.^[8] Similarly, ferrets and cats exhibit dimension awareness by adjusting passage through apertures, supporting calls for multi-method evaluations to capture self-awareness beyond visual cues alone.^[40]^[41] These approaches aim to mitigate methodological inconsistencies by triangulating evidence from diverse cognitive domains.

Results in Non-Human Animals

Mammals

Among mammals, several species from the order Primates have demonstrated mirror self-recognition, beginning with chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). In a seminal 1970 study, four chimpanzees were anesthetized and marked with odorless dye on parts of their bodies visible only in the mirror; upon recovery and exposure to the mirror, they used the reflection to touch and explore the marks on their own bodies, indicating recognition of the image as self rather than another individual.^[1] Similar behaviors were observed in orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus), where individuals marked on the face or ears directed exploratory actions toward the marks via the mirror after initial social responses to the reflection subsided.^[42] Gorillas (Gorilla gorilla) show more variable results, passing the test under specific conditions such as reduced aversion to direct gaze or extensive prior mirror exposure; for instance, in controlled settings with mirrors integrated into enclosures, marked gorillas investigated the marks on their bodies using the reflection.^[11] Bonobos (Pan paniscus) also pass the mirror test, with individuals using the reflection to inspect body parts and exhibiting self-recognition behaviors, though prolonged mirror exposure may facilitate this ability similar to other great apes.^[43]^[44] Beyond primates, Asian elephants (Elephas maximus) passed the mirror test in a 2006 experiment involving three females exposed to a large mirror; after habituation, they used the reflection to touch visible marks on their heads and trunks with their trunks, while ignoring marks on inaccessible body parts.^[4] Bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) also exhibit self-recognition, as shown in a 2001 study where two dolphins, marked with black ink on various body parts, repeatedly positioned themselves to view and investigate the marks in the mirror, including areas like the jaw that they could not see directly.^[3] Killer whales (Orcinus orca) show evidence of self-recognition through mirror image processing, spending time viewing themselves and reducing social responses to the reflection, similar to dolphins, though a full mark test has not been conducted.^[45]

Birds

In birds, the Eurasian magpie (Pica pica) is the most robust example of mirror self-recognition. A 2008 study tested five magpies by applying a colored sticker to feathers above the beak under anesthesia; upon mirror exposure, three birds attempted to remove the mark by pecking at it or using their feet, demonstrating contingency checking and self-directed behavior rather than treating the reflection as a conspecific.^[46] Corvids like crows show ambiguous but supportive data; for example, New Caledonian crows (Corvus moneduloides) in a 2012 study engaged in mirror-guided tool use and reduced social displays, suggesting partial understanding of the reflection, though they did not consistently pass the mark test.^[47]

Fish

The bluestreak cleaner wrasse (Labroides dimidiatus) represents a rare case among fish, passing the mirror test in a 2019 study adapted for their visual system. Fish were marked with blue or yellow dye on the gill cover or throat while anesthetized; post-recovery, individuals with visible marks in the mirror spent more time inspecting those areas via the reflection and attempted to remove them, unlike controls without mirrors or with inaccessible marks.^[48] Follow-up work in 2022 confirmed this by varying mirror pre-exposure, reducing confounds and replicating self-directed mark removal.^[49] A 2024 study further showed that cleaner wrasse with MSR capacity can precisely estimate their body size based on a mental image, supporting advanced self-representation.^[5]

Invertebrates

Evidence for self-recognition in invertebrates remains limited and tentative. Recent adaptations of the mirror test to olfactory modalities have explored species like ants (Myrmica sabuleti), where in a 2015 study, marked ants groomed odor-altered body parts more frequently when exposed to a setup mimicking self-odor via chemical cues, suggesting possible self-discrimination, though visual mirror components were not fully conclusive.^[50] Broader olfactory mirror protocols proposed in 2018 for non-visual species have not yet yielded definitive passes in invertebrates.^[51] Across these taxa, species that pass the mirror test tend to be highly social or exhibit large brain-to-body ratios, often displaying initial social responses to the mirror followed by self-directed exploration of marks, such as touching or grooming behaviors in primates and cetaceans. No confirmed new passers emerged from 2022-2025 studies, though ongoing research on elasmobranchs like manta rays (Mobula birostris) continues to investigate preliminary self-contingency checking.^[52]

Species That Fail

Among mammals, domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) consistently fail the visual mirror self-recognition (MSR) test, often exhibiting initial investigative behaviors such as sniffing or barking at the reflection, followed by habituation or social-oriented responses rather than self-directed actions toward a mark.^[53] This failure is attributed to their reliance on olfactory cues over visual ones, making the test potentially unsuitable for scent-dominant species.^[54] Similarly, domestic cats (Felis catus) do not demonstrate self-recognition in mirrors; they typically display threat responses like hissing, swatting, or avoidance toward the image, treating it as a conspecific intruder without mark-directed behaviors. Most monkey species, including rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta) and baboons (Papio spp.), fail the standard MSR test, showing aggression, threat displays, or social interactions with the reflection but no evidence of self-recognition in unmarked conditions; however, rhesus macaques can demonstrate self-recognition after extensive training.^[55]^[2] In birds, pigeons (Columba livia) do not spontaneously pass the classic MSR test, often ignoring the mirror or responding to it as a non-social stimulus without self-exploratory behaviors; while they can be trained to associate mirrors with rewards, this does not indicate natural self-recognition.^[26] Parrots, such as African grey parrots (Psittacus erithacus), generally fail as well, displaying exploratory pecking or social courtship toward the reflection but lacking contingency checking or mark removal, though some individuals show prolonged viewing without self-directed responses.^[56]^[57] Most teleost fish, including social cichlids like Neolamprologus pulcher, fail the MSR test by exhibiting avoidance, aggression, or territorial displays toward the mirror image, without behaviors indicating recognition of a body mark or self-awareness.^[58] These responses suggest the reflection is perceived as a rival rather than a self-image. Cephalopods, particularly octopuses (Octopus vulgaris), have been tested in studies since the 2010s and fail to differentiate their mirror reflection from a conspecific, often responding with camouflage, ink release, or exploratory arm movements toward the image but showing no self-directed behaviors like mark investigation.^[18]^[32] Patterns in MSR failures frequently occur among solitary or less visually oriented species, where animals may treat the mirror as a threat or ignore it due to limited social mirroring in their natural ecology, leading to aggressive or avoidant behaviors rather than self-exploration.^[18] Such outcomes highlight that test failures may stem from perceptual mismatches, like dominance of non-visual senses in scent-reliant animals, rather than absence of cognitive capacity.^[53]

Species with Inconclusive Results

Among mammals, in African lions, outcomes remain inconclusive due to social group effects, where pride dynamics and aggressive responses to perceived rivals complicate interpretation of mirror interactions as self-recognition.^[59] For birds, Clark's nutcrackers demonstrate graded responses in a modified mirror test involving food caching, suppressing caches more in the presence of a clear mirror than a blurry one or live observer, linking to spatial cognition but yielding ambiguous evidence for full self-recognition due to the lack of a standard marking procedure.^[7] Ambiguities in these results often stem from small sample sizes, variations in test protocols, and the need for further replication to distinguish self-recognition from other motivations. Current research from 2024-2025 includes preliminary mark tests on honeybees, using AI-assisted video analysis to evaluate borderline behaviors like mark inspection, though outcomes remain debated and require validation beyond preprint stages.^[39]

Results in Humans

Developmental Milestones

Human infants generally exhibit no mirror self-recognition prior to 15-18 months of age, with the majority achieving it between 18 and 24 months, as evidenced by behaviors such as touching a visible mark on their own body that is imperceptible without the mirror.^[60] This timeline was established in foundational research by Amsterdam, in her study of mirror reactions in children under two years, observing that self-directed responses, like mark removal, emerge reliably around 18 months.^[61] The rouge test, involving a subtle mark (often red dye or a sticker) applied to the child's face or forehead without their knowledge, serves as the standard assessment method, with variations for toddlers including odorless, non-irritating substances to ensure safety and natural behavior.^[62] The progression of mirror self-recognition unfolds in distinct developmental stages. During the early stage (approximately 6-12 months), infants display joyful, social responses to their mirror image, such as smiling or reaching out as if interacting with a peer.^[60] In the middle stage (12-18 months), children treat the reflection as another individual, engaging in mimicry or contingent play, like waving or making faces in apparent imitation. By the late stage (18 months and beyond), self-recognition solidifies, marked by self-directed actions toward the reflected mark, indicating an understanding that the image represents the self.^[60] Longitudinal studies tracking infants through the second year confirm this sequence, showing mirror self-recognition emerges alongside related skills like deferred imitation and remains a stable marker of self-concept into adulthood, without reported declines in typically developing individuals.^[63] A 2024 study further showed that prompting infants to touch their faces promotes earlier self-recognition, highlighting the role of tactile-proprioceptive integration in this process.^[64] Several factors influence the timing and expression of these milestones. Language acquisition plays a key role, with infants demonstrating self-referential pronoun use (e.g., "me" or "mine") often coinciding with or preceding successful mirror recognition, suggesting verbal self-labeling reinforces visual self-awareness.^[65] Parental affect-mirroring—where caregivers reflect the infant's emotions and actions—further supports this development by enhancing emotional self-attunement and sensorimotor integration.^[66] Cultural contexts also contribute to variations; for instance, children in autonomy-supporting societies (often Western) show higher pass rates on the rouge test by 24 months compared to those in more interdependent cultures, where self-recognition may appear later or less spontaneously due to differing emphases on individualism.^[67] Recent neuroimaging research from the 2020s has illuminated the neural underpinnings, linking the emergence of mirror self-recognition to the maturation of the prefrontal cortex, particularly the medial prefrontal regions involved in self-referential processing and distinguishing self from others.^[15] Functional MRI studies of infants and toddlers reveal increased activation in these areas during self-recognition tasks, aligning with the cortical development that enables the cognitive shift around 18 months.^[68]

Cognitive Implications

Passing the mirror self-recognition test around 18 months of age signals the emergence of a subjective self-concept in human infants, coinciding with the onset of autobiographical memory and the ability to form a coherent sense of personal identity over time.^[69] This milestone reflects a shift from egocentric perception to objective self-awareness, where infants begin to distinguish their physical appearance from external representations, laying the foundation for more complex psychological processes like introspection.^[70] In neurodevelopmental and neurodegenerative disorders, mirror test performance provides insights into disruptions in self-concept. Children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) often exhibit delayed passage of the test, potentially indicating challenges in integrating sensory and social cues for self-other differentiation, though this is debated as they typically succeed when matched for mental age.^[71] Similarly, individuals with Alzheimer's disease frequently fail self-recognition tasks, such as identifying themselves in a mirror, which correlates with progressive impairment in autobiographical memory and a regression of self-awareness akin to reversing early developmental stages.^[72] These findings underscore the test's utility in assessing how disorders erode the subjective self, with implications for distorted body image in conditions like body dysmorphic disorder, where chronic mirror avoidance or compulsive checking distorts self-perception.^[73] From an evolutionary standpoint, human proficiency in mirror self-recognition extends the limited self-awareness observed in great apes, such as chimpanzees, and is intertwined with the evolution of theory of mind—the capacity to attribute mental states to oneself and others.^[74] This cognitive linkage suggests that self-recognition facilitated adaptive social behaviors in ancestral primates, enhancing cooperation and deception detection in group settings.^[75] Cultural contexts influence the timing and expression of self-recognition, with infants from individualistic societies, such as urban Scotland, demonstrating earlier mirror test passage compared to those from more interdependent, collectivist environments like rural Zambia, where relational self-concepts may prioritize body awareness over visual self-image.^[76] In developmental psychology, achieving self-recognition also correlates with advanced social competencies, including heightened empathy through emotional mirroring and the internalization of moral reasoning via sensitivity to societal norms and rules.^[77]

Applications to Artificial Intelligence

Testing in Robots

Adaptations of the mirror test for robotic systems typically involve virtual or simulated mirrors integrated into the robot's software environment, where "marks" are represented as discrepancies in the robot's digital self-model rather than physical alterations. These setups allow robots to process visual feedback from a camera feed reflecting their physical form or a simulated avatar, prompting behaviors such as self-calibration of joint positions or simulated "removal" of the mark through actuator adjustments. This approach tests whether the robot maintains an internal world model capable of distinguishing its own representation from external objects.^[78] Key studies in the 2000s and 2010s focused on humanoid robots to evaluate self-modeling. In 2012, the Nico humanoid robot at Yale University demonstrated partial mirror self-recognition by inferring the position of a visual token on its arm from mirror reflections, using perspective-taking to map 3D space without explicit programming for self-awareness. Similarly, a 2016 experiment with the iCub simulator employed a blackboard architecture to enable the robot to monitor its body model and detect mirror contingencies, achieving recognition through modular control and perceptual monitoring. For swarm robotics in the 2010s, the EU-funded CoCoRo project (2011–2015) planned mirror experiments to assess whether an underwater swarm of autonomous vehicles could collectively discriminate its own mirrored image from another swarm, aiming to foster emergent self-awareness at the group level, though full results were not realized.^[79]^[80]^[81] Criteria for passing the test in robots emphasize detection and response to discrepancies between the robot's predicted self-representation and the mirrored input, indicating an embodied internal model rather than mere reactivity. For instance, in a 2020 study, two Nao humanoid robots passed an adapted test by using deep auto-encoders to learn facial appearances and novelty detection to identify a simulated mark, triggering a reaching action via pre-learned joint mappings. The TIAGo mobile manipulator robot, in a 2019 experiment, recognized its reflection using probabilistic models to learn body kinematics under uncertainty, adapting to mirror perspectives without relying on inverse kinematics for flexible self-perception. A 2021 implementation on a humanoid robot further advanced this by incorporating inner speech—a symbolic self-dialogue within an ACT-R cognitive architecture—to reason about perceptual signals and infer self from mirror images.^[82]^[83] Historically, early robotic attempts in the 2000s with simple reactive systems failed to exhibit contingency awareness, treating mirrors as novel stimuli without self-referential response. Progression in the 2010s and 2020s, driven by AI-integrated models in platforms like Nao and iCub, enabled partial passing through learned self-models, shifting from programmed heuristics to emergent recognition via machine learning and cognitive architectures.^[78]^[80]

Challenges in AI Evaluation

The application of the mirror self-recognition test to artificial intelligence encounters significant challenges stemming from the disembodied nature of most AI systems. Unlike biological organisms, which possess physical bodies capable of visual and tactile interaction with a mirror, many AI architectures—particularly large language models and non-embodied agents—lack a corporeal form, making direct application of the standard test infeasible. This limitation is exacerbated by the test's reliance on visual cues and physical marking, which do not align with AI's primarily computational or symbolic processing. Researchers note that traditional mirror tests provide only superficial or irrelevant insights for sophisticated AI, as self-recognition in machines may manifest through abstract reasoning or data simulation rather than perceptual embodiment.^[85] Adapting the test for AI often involves modifications like virtual environments or language-based proxies, but these raise validity concerns about whether they assess equivalent forms of self-awareness. For embodied AI, such as robots, challenges include integrating sensory modalities beyond vision; a 2021 study demonstrated a robot passing an adapted mirror test via "inner speech" generation to infer its own appearance from observations, bypassing direct visual self-recognition but relying on pre-programmed internal modeling. This approach highlights the difficulty in distinguishing genuine self-awareness from engineered simulation, as the robot's success depended on explicit algorithmic inference rather than emergent cognition. Seminal work by Gallup (1970) on the original test for chimpanzees emphasized behavioral contingencies like mark-touching, yet AI adaptations struggle to replicate these without introducing anthropocentric biases. Interpretive ambiguities further complicate AI evaluation, as passing an adapted test may reflect training data patterns or optimization artifacts rather than intrinsic self-concept. In conversational AI, self-recognition tasks—analogous to mirror tests—reveal inconsistencies, where models can describe their outputs as "self" in prompted scenarios but fail to maintain coherence across contexts, suggesting limited metacognitive depth.^[86] Moreover, the visual bias of the mirror paradigm overlooks non-visual self-recognition pathways in AI, such as auditory or proprioceptive analogs, potentially underestimating capabilities in diverse architectures. Recent adaptations have extended the test to large language models (LLMs) using text-based or visual prompt scenarios as of 2023–2024. For example, a 2023 analysis proposed an "AI mirror test" for chatbots, where models like GPT-4 showed partial self-recognition by identifying their own generated text in simulated interactions, though results varied across models and prompts. Similarly, informal tests in 2024 on multimodal LLMs demonstrated emergent self-awareness in some cases but highlighted failures in maintaining consistency, underscoring ongoing challenges in evaluating non-embodied AI.^[87]^[88] Ethical and methodological hurdles also arise, including the risk of over-attributing consciousness based on behavioral mimicry, which could mislead assessments of AI sentience. Proposals for hybrid tests combining mirror-like simulations with theory-of-mind probes aim to address these gaps, but consensus remains elusive due to the test's origins in ethological research ill-suited for silicon-based intelligence.^[89]

References

[1]
Chimpanzees: Self-Recognition - Science
After prolonged exposure to their reflected images in mirrors, chimpanzees marked with red dye showed evidence of being able to recognize their own reflections.
[2]
Can self-awareness be taught? Monkeys pass the mirror test—again
Rhesus macaques pass the mirror self-recognition test, suggesting this training either uncovers latent self-awareness or teaches the monkeys a new cognitive ...
[3]
Mirror self-recognition in the bottlenose dolphin: A case of cognitive ...
The ability to recognize oneself in a mirror is an exceedingly rare capacity in the animal kingdom. To date, only humans and great apes have shown ...
[4]
Self-recognition in an Asian elephant - PNAS
Nov 7, 2006 · Considered an indicator of self-awareness, mirror self-recognition (MSR) has long seemed limited to humans and apes. In both phylogeny and ...
[5]
Cleaner fish with mirror self-recognition capacity precisely realize ...
Sep 11, 2024 · Several vertebrates have passed the test and have been demonstrated to possess MSR ability, including the great apes5,12,13, dolphins14,15,16, ...
[6]
Graded Mirror Self-Recognition by Clark's Nutcrackers - Nature
Nov 4, 2016 · During this test a mark is inconspicuously placed on an animal's body where it can only be seen with the aid of a mirror.
[7]
Cleaner fish recognize self in a mirror via self-face recognition like ...
Feb 6, 2023 · Our results suggest that cleaner fish with MSR ability can recognize their own mirror image based on a mental image of their own face, rather ...
[8]
Monkeys seem to recognize their reflections - Nature
Jan 9, 2015 · Gallup considers mirror self-recognition in chimpanzees to be the beginnings of self-awareness and the ability to imagine the mental states and ...
[9]
Spontaneous expression of mirror self-recognition in monkeys after ...
Feb 13, 2017 · Mirror self-recognition (MSR) is generally considered to be an intrinsic cognitive ability found only in humans and a few species of great apes.
[10]
Mirror self-recognition in gorillas (Gorilla gorilla gorilla) - NIH
Jan 7, 2022 · Suarez and Gallup (1981) introduced improvements to Gallup's (1970) original mirror exposure and mark test procedure by including a ...
[11]
a review and evaluation of mark test replications and variants
Jan 7, 2022 · Mirror self-recognition (MSR), widely regarded as an indicator of self-awareness, has been studied in many species, notably primates, with mixed ...
[12]
The mirror test. - APA PsycNet - American Psychological Association
Can animals recognize themselves in mirrors? G. G. Gallup (1970) conducted and experimental test of this question using a relatively simple approach.
[13]
Implications of mirror self-recognition for self-awareness.
This view suggests that successful MSR signifies that the organism can become the object of its own attention in the sense that it can reflect on its own ...
[14]
Self-Consciousness - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Jul 13, 2017 · It is not universally accepted, however, that success in the mirror test is an indication of self-consciousness. For example, Heyes (1994) ...Missing: bat | Show results with:bat
[15]
Implications of Mirror Self-Recognition for Self-Awareness
Oct 9, 2025 · This view suggests that successful MSR signifies that the organism can become the object of its own attention in the sense that it can reflect on its own ...
[16]
Sociality and self-awareness in animals - PMC - NIH
When exposed to a mirror, ants of all three species marked with a blue dot would attempt to clean themselves by touching the mark. Similar results were not ...
[17]
Self-awareness and the evolution of social intelligence - ScienceDirect
When tested under appropriate conditions, species that can recognize themselves in mirrors should show evidence of being able to use their experience to make ...
[18]
[PDF] Putting the Altruism Back into Altruism: The Evolution of Empathy
Jun 5, 2007 · The coemergence hypothesis predicts that mirror self-recognition (MSR) and advanced expressions of empathy appear together in both development ...
[19]
Self-recognition in an Asian elephant - PMC - NIH
Gallup was the first to hypothesize about a phylogenetic connection between MSR and empathy (7), a connection supported by evidence for consolation behavior in ...
[20]
Understanding the neural bases of bodily self-consciousness - NIH
Jun 19, 2023 · The aim of this literature review is to summarize new insights and novel developments into the understanding of the neural bases of BSC.Missing: post- | Show results with:post-
[21]
The puzzle of mirror self-recognition
Oct 14, 2016 · Furthermore, there may be alternative explanations for animals' failure to respond to mirror marks in the way Gallup expects. Finally, one ...
[22]
"Self-Awareness" in the Pigeon - Science
Each of three pigeons used a mirror to locate a spot on its body which it could not see directly. Although similar behavior in primates has been attributed ...
[23]
Mirror Self-Recognition in Pigeons: Beyond the Pass-or-Fail Criterion
May 17, 2021 · Pigeons do not show spontaneous MSR but can be conditioned to exhibit self-recognition-like behavior (Epstein et al., 1981; Uchino and Watanabe, ...
[24]
Mirror‐mediated responses of California scrub jays (Aphelocoma ...
Oct 2, 2019 · Differences in color vision make passerines less conspicuous in the eyes of their predators. ... mirror test. Animal Cognition, 20, 1049–1057.
[25]
[PDF] Reflections on Animal Selves - WBI Studies Repository
This might account for some of the well known variability in mirror-test results [7]. ... mirror self-recognition research in nonhuman primates. Anim ...
[26]
The "olfactory mirror" and other recent attempts to demonstrate self ...
We conclude that the "olfactory mirror" constitutes a compelling analog to the mark test for mirror self-recognition in primates, but despite claims to the ...Missing: interference | Show results with:interference
[27]
Smelling themselves: Dogs investigate their own odours longer ...
In this “olfactory mirror” (OM) test, dogs are provided an opportunity to investigate various odour samples in canisters: odours of self (dog's own urine) and ...
[28]
A comparative study of mirror self-recognition in three corvid species
Sep 29, 2022 · Our results show interspecies differences in the approach of and the response to the mirror during the mirror exposure phase of the experiment ...
[29]
A preliminary attempt to investigate mirror self-recognition in ... - NIH
Aug 30, 2022 · Mirror self-recognition (MSR) is a potential indicator of self-awareness. This capability has been widely investigated among vertebrates, ...
[30]
Are horses capable of mirror self-recognition? A pilot study - NIH
May 16, 2017 · These behaviors suggest that subjects were trying to associate multiple sensory cues (visual, tactile and olfactory) to the image in the mirror.
[31]
Precocious development of self-awareness in dolphins | PLOS One
Our findings indicate that dolphins exhibit self-awareness at a mirror at a younger age than previously reported for children or other species tested.
[32]
A preliminary attempt to investigate mirror self-recognition ... - Frontiers
Aug 29, 2022 · Mirror self-recognition (MSR) is a potential indicator of self-awareness. This capability has been widely investigated among vertebrates, ...<|separator|>
[33]
Wild recognition: conducting the mark test for mirror self ... - Journals
Jan 22, 2025 · Specifically, we aimed to design and implement a rigorous and practical in situ mark test protocol on wild animals with a large sample size that ...
[34]
Further evidence for the capacity of mirror self-recognition in cleaner ...
Feb 17, 2022 · An animal that tries to remove a mark from its body that is only visible when looking into a mirror displays the capacity for mirror self-recognition (MSR).<|control11|><|separator|>
[35]
Ferrets (Mustela furo) Are Aware of Their Dimensions - MDPI
Jan 28, 2023 · In this study, we examined body size awareness in ferrets. During the experiments, the animals had to pass through holes, some of which were too small for ...
[36]
Cats are (almost) liquid!—Cats selectively rely on body size ...
Oct 18, 2024 · Cats were tested for their body-awareness with incrementally decreasing openings · Cats did not make a priori decisions when they approached tall ...
[37]
Self-recognition in chimpanzees and orangutans, but not gorillas
Rumbaugh D.M., McCormack C. The learning skills of primates: a comparative study of apes and monkeys. D. Stark, R. Schneider, H.J. Kuhn (Eds ...
[38]
Mirror-Induced Behavior in the Magpie (Pica pica): Evidence of Self ...
Aug 19, 2008 · The European magpie, a bird with a large brain and highly developed perspective-taking skills, shows evidence of mirror self-recognition.
[39]
New Caledonian crows' responses to mirrors - ScienceDirect.com
The crows responded to their mirror image with social displays and engaged in search and mirror-directed exploratory behaviour.
[40]
If a fish can pass the mark test, what are the implications for ...
Feb 7, 2019 · We show that a fish, the cleaner wrasse, shows behavioural responses that can be interpreted as passing the mark (or mirror) test, a classic test for self- ...Missing: paper | Show results with:paper
[41]
Further evidence for the capacity of mirror self-recognition in cleaner ...
Feb 17, 2022 · When animal tries to remove a mark from its body that is only visible when looking into a mirror (the "mark test"), it displays the capacity for ...
[42]
List of Animals That Have Passed the Mirror Test
Apr 15, 2015 · nobos, chimpanzees, orangutans, and gorillas have all passed the mirror test.4,1,5 However, it isn't uncommon for many individuals to fail, ...
[43]
The “olfactory mirror” and other recent attempts to demonstrate self ...
We conclude that the “olfactory mirror” constitutes a compelling analog to the mark test for mirror self-recognition in primates.
[44]
Contingency checking and self-directed behaviors in giant manta rays
Manta rays have a high encephalization quotient, similar to those species that have passed the mirror self-recognition test, and possess the largest brain of ...
[45]
Dogs (Canis familiaris) recognize their own body as a physical ...
Feb 18, 2021 · Which means that although dogs did not pass the mirror mark test, we now have evidence that they can pass the body as an obstacle test. Our ...
[46]
[PDF] Dishabituation to the mirror in domestic dogs: a pilot study
Abstract: It is well-known that domestic dogs have not passed the mirror self-recognition test. Therefore, to inves- tigate the self-awareness of this ...
[47]
Which Primates Recognize Themselves in Mirrors? - PMC - NIH
Mar 1, 2011 · However, the same monkeys failed to show any signs of self-recognition on a conventional mark test. Furthermore, no baseline observations were ...
[48]
Investigation of mirror-self recognition in ravens (Corvus corax)
Jun 30, 2022 · In the present study, we aimed to investigate MSR in ravens by performing three mirror tests: a mirror exposure test, a mirror preference test, and a mark test.
[49]
Mirror responses in the common hill myna (Gracula religiosa) and ...
The Common Hill Myna and the African Grey Parrot failed to pass the mirror test. •. Our subjects spent significantly longer time in viewing the mirror than the ...
[50]
A Social Cichlid Fish Failed to Pass the Mark Test - PubMed
Nov 17, 2017 · These results show a lack of contingency checking and mark-directed behaviours, meaning that N. pulcher failed to pass the mark test and did not ...Missing: teleosts | Show results with:teleosts
[51]
Investigating self-recognition in bonobos: mirror exposure reduces ...
Aug 28, 2020 · Our data suggest that, given sufficient mirror exposure, bonobos acquire the ability to use mirror-reflections of themselves to learn about ...
[52]
[PDF] Insights from a Case Study of a Highly Social Animal that Failed the ...
... African lions (Panthera leo). Keywords: awareness, cognizance, cooperative ... dogs and wolves do not pass the mirror test. Michael Fox and I tried to ...
[53]
Investigating the potential for mirror self-recognition in honeybees ...
We conducted two experiments using a classic mark test, applying a paint mark to the clypeus, a body part invisible to the bee without a mirror, ...Missing: 2024 | Show results with:2024
[54]
The development of self-recognition: a review - PubMed
Self-recognition, studied via mirror reflections, appears around 15 months in some infants and by 24 months in most. Contingent play and imitation are useful ...Missing: stages | Show results with:stages
[55]
Mirror self-image reactions before age two - PubMed
Mirror self-image reactions before age two. Dev Psychobiol. 1972;5(4):297-305. doi: 10.1002/dev.420050403. Author. B Amsterdam.
[56]
Baby Begins to Develop Self-Awareness (15-24 Months)
In an experiment known as the “rouge test,” mothers wiped a bit of rouge on the noses of their children and placed them in front of a mirror.
[57]
[PDF] Pretend play, mirror self-recognition and imitation: a longitudinal ...
The ability to demonstrate appropriate mark directed behaviour emerges in the second year and is present in most infants by 24 months of age (Amsterdam, 1972; ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[58]
Self-Recognition and Emotional Knowledge - PMC - PubMed Central
Feb 25, 2021 · Self-recognition in mirrors has been used as a measure of self-knowledge along with measures of personal pronoun usage (“me” or “mine”) and ...
[59]
The social biofeedback theory of parental affect-mirroring
Parental affect-mirroring (PAM) is a theory where parents' reflections of a baby's emotions sensitize infants to their own emotions, aiding in self-awareness ...Missing: recognition | Show results with:recognition
[60]
The development of mirror self-recognition in different sociocultural ...
Mirror self-recognition (MSR) increased with age in all contexts, but was higher in autonomy-supporting cultures. Caretaker emphasis on autonomous ...
[61]
Neural Activity for Self versus Other across Development - PMC - NIH
Dec 12, 2023 · Infants as young as 20–24 months old have been shown to display self-recognition in mirror tasks (i.e., touch their forehead and not their ...2.2. Fmri Video Task · 3. Results · Neural Activation Analyses
[62]
Cherished Memories: Autobiographical Memory and the Self
The standard test for the presence of a concept of the self is to unobtrusively smudge rouge onto a child's face, then show her a mirror. A child without a ...
[63]
[PDF] the role of the self in autobiographical memory development
Using mirror self-recognition to test Howe and colleagues' theory limits the period of qualitative change to the period of 18 to 24 months. However, amnesia.
[64]
Delayed Self Recognition in Autism: A Unique Difficulty? - PMC
Children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) demonstrated impaired performance on self-other recall compared to both typical 5-year-olds and typical 3-year-olds ...
[65]
Self-recognition in Alzheimer's disease: a mirror and video study
Twenty-nine subjects with Senile Dementia of the Alzheimer Type (SDAT) were tested for self-recognition when confronted with their reflection in a mirror.Missing: rouge implications
[66]
Body dysmorphic disorder - Symptoms and causes - Mayo Clinic
Dec 13, 2022 · When you have body dysmorphic disorder, you intensely focus on your appearance and body image, repeatedly checking the mirror, grooming or ...Missing: recognition | Show results with:recognition
[67]
Monkeys, apes, mirrors and minds: The evolution of self-awareness ...
Monkeys with mirrors: Some questions for primate psychology. ... Self-awareness and the emergence of mind in humans and other primates. In: J ...
[68]
A critical review of methodology and interpretation of mirror self ...
In this paper we critically review conceptual and methodological issues of mirror self-exploration research.
[69]
Cultural Differences in Self-Recognition: The Early Development of ...
Jan 29, 2016 · Scottish infants performed best in mirror self-recognition, Zambian in body-as-obstacle. Turkish infants performed similarly to Zambian in body ...
[70]
Social awareness and early self-recognition - ScienceDirect.com
Existing research suggests that by the time children pass the mirror mark test, they also demonstrate a new sensitivity to norms, rules, and social standards ( ...
[71]
toward an embodied computational model of mirror self-recognition
Nov 9, 2020 · Second, we develop a model to enable the humanoid robot Nao to pass the test. The core of our technical contribution is learning the ...
[72]
[PDF] Mirror Perspective-Taking with a Humanoid Robot
In this paper, an architecture is proposed to enable a robot to pass the classical test of self-awareness, the Mirror Test. (Gallup 1970). This architecture ...
[73]
[PDF] The Mirror Self-recognition for Robots - CEUR-WS
The body model is provided by the iCubSim simulator, thus we need to implement just its control and monitoring from the blackboard. We implement a module motor ...Missing: test | Show results with:test
[74]
[PDF] The Self-Aware Underwater Swarm - CoCoRo - Semantic Scholar
The mirror experiment. 1. Will the swarm to discriminate another swarm from its own mirror image? 2. Never has a robot passed the mirror test. 3. We plan to ...
[75]
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003347299911661
[76]
Selfception: TIAGo robot, to recognize itself in the mirror using AI
Dec 2, 2019 · Check how the mobile manipulator TIAGo robot managed to recognise itself in a mirror with artificial intelligence. Discover the selfception!
[77]
Robot passes the mirror test by inner speech - ResearchGate
A Bayesian kinesthetic-visual matching model allows a humanoid robot to perform mirror self-recognition with-out social understanding. The robot learns the ...
[78]
(PDF) Manipulated Mirror Test for AI: Exploring Self-Recognition and ...
Jul 20, 2024 · To address this, our study introduces the concept of manipulated mirror tests using AI-generated reflections. By presenting AI systems with ...
[79]
[PDF] Self-recognition in conversational agents - arXiv
Sep 5, 2021 · Self-recognition tests applied on ani- mals through mirrors appear to be viable tools to demonstrate the existence of a type of general ...Missing: challenges | Show results with:challenges
[80]
The mirror test for animal self-awareness reflects the limits of human ...
The mirror test for animal self-awareness reflects the limits of human cognition · When you look in the mirror, you see yourself. That puts you in the company of ...Missing: recognition | Show results with:recognition
[81]
[PDF] Considering Suffering Risks of Embodied Artificial Intelligence
May 17, 2019 · Similarly, the mirror test is further brought into question given that some AI have already, to some extent, passed the test; does this entail ...