Value transfer in a simultaneous discrimination by pigeons: The value of the S+ is not specific to the simultaneous discrimination context

During simultaneous discrimination training, there is evidence that some of the value of the S⁺ transfers to the S^?. When the value of the S+ is altered outside the context of the simultaneous discrimination, two very different predictions are made concerning its effect on its S^?, depending on whether one views the S⁺ as an occasion setter or as a stimulus capable of transferring value. In four experiments, pigeons were trained with two similar simultaneous discriminations, A⁺B^? and C⁺D^?, and two single-stimulus trial types, A and C, (in which A always had greater nominal value than C). According to value transfer theory, on test trials, B should always be preferred over D, because B and D should be affected by the net values of A and C, respectively. According to an occasion setting account, however, D should be preferred over B because the presence of D signals a higher probability of reinforcement for responding to C than when C is alone, and/or the presence of B signals a lower probability of reinforcement for responding to A than when A is alone. In all four experiments, the pigeons preferred B over D, a result consistent with value transfer theory. Thus, an S^? can acquire value from an S⁺ even when that value is conditioned in a “context” different from that of the simultaneous discrimination.     

Feature extinction enhances transfer of occasion setting

In three experiments, transfer effects in appetitive serial feature-positive discrimination procedures (X→A+,A?) were examined with rat subjects. Nonreinforced presentations of the feature (X) alone had little or no effect on that cue’s ability to modulate responding to the target cue with which it had originally been trained (A) but enhanced its ability to modulate responding to another cue (B), which had been the target within another serial feature-positive discrimination (Y→B+,B?). These effects were observed when the nonreinforcedX presentations occurred either concurrently withX→A+,A? training or afterward. Regardless of whether or not nonreinforcedX presentations were administered,X did not modulate responding evoked by a cue that had not been trained within a serial feature-positive discrimination. These data help resolve conflicts in published reports of transfer or its absence in this conditioning situation, and shed light on the nature of the modulatory or occasion-setting powers of feature cues in serial feature-positive discrimination learning.     

Quelques Erreurs Pouvant être Liées à Une Difficulté à Concevoir un Ensemble Comme un Objet Distinct De Ses éléments Chez Des étudiants Et Des étudiantes Universitaires

As a first step of a project on learning difficulties in elementary set theory, we carried out a study aimed at identifying some of the difficulties encountered by a group of 21 mathematics majors taking a course on logic and set theory. In this paper, we shall discuss one of the difficulties that we observed, namely a difficulty in conceiving a set as an object distinct from its elements, i.e. failing to fully grant sets the status of objects. This difficulty may be related to the following three types of errors that we observed in the students' first assignment: (1) confusing belonging and inclusion, (2) confusing the union of sets A, B, C, ... with the set whose elements are A, B, C, … and (3) adding or deleting curly brackets. We shall present excerpts from the students' work illustrating these three types of errors and explain how they may be related to a difficulty in conceiving a set as an object distinct from its elements.     

An easy-to-hard effect after nonreinforced preexposure in a sweetness discrimination

Experiments 1A and 1B used a taste-aversion procedure with rats to demonstrate that exposure to easily discriminated flavors along a dimension (1 % and 10 % sucrose) can facilitate learning a subsequent hard discrimination (4 % and 7 % sucrose) when one of those flavors is paired with illness. Experiment 1A compared the effects of preexposure to the easily discriminated flavors against exposure to the same stimuli used in the discrimination training or no exposure at all. Experiment 1B replicated the conditions in Experiment 1A, with 2 additional days of training and unrestricted access to the flavors on CS+/CS– trials in discrimination training. Contrary to findings with multidimensional stimuli (Scahill & Mackintosh, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 30, 96–103, 2004; Suret & McLaren, The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 56B, 30–42, 2003), we found that preexposure to the easily discriminable stimuli varying along a single dimension of sweetness facilitated subsequent discrimination training over the other conditions in each experiment. We discuss the results in terms of the ideas presented by Gibson (1969) and Mackintosh (Psychological Review, 82, 276–298, 1975) and in terms of hedonic variables not considered by theories of perceptual learning.     

Resistance to interference in complex negative patterning

Resistance to interference was examined in rats that received a complex negative patterning discrimination in which XA and XB were followed by food reinforcement and XAB was not. Retention of the discrimination was evident after separate reinforcement of both A and B (Experiment 3), but not after reinforcement of either AB (Experiments 1 and 3) or XAB (Experiments 2 and 3). These data suggest that complex negative patterning discriminations are acquired configurally and that the relative similarity of the original discrimination and subsequent interference trials dictates the final degree of retention observed.     

Alternative accounts are preferable to value transfer theory: Commentary on Dorrance, Kaiser, and Zentall (1998)

Dorrance, Kaiser, and Zentall (1998) trained pigeons on two concurrent simultaneous discriminations (A₊B_?; C₊D_?), with interspersed single-stimulus trials in which responding to the two positive discriminanda was differentially reinforced (A₊; C_±). In each of four separate experiments, the birds showed a preference for stimulus B over stimulus D. Dorrance et al. concluded that the results of these experiments were best described in terms of value transfer theory (VTT; Fersen, Wynne, Delius, & Staddon, 1991). They reject the possibility that the results of these experiments might have been caused by differential nonreinforced experience with the test stimuli (B and D) on the basis of correlational analyses within each experiment. However, differences between experiments in choice of B over D are well predicted by differences in their history of reinforcement. Previous findings that were thought to favor VTT are also entirely consistent with a simpler associative analysis.     

Failure to obtain value enhancement by within-trial contrast in simultaneous and successive discriminations

The present research tested the generality of the “work ethic“ effect described by Clement, Feltus, Kaiser, and Zentall (2000). In Experiment 1, we trained 10 pigeons on a pair of either simultaneous or successive discriminations. One discrimination followed a high-effort requirement (20 pecks to the center key) and the other followed a low-effort requirement (1 peck). Contrary to Clement et al.’s results, we found that preferences between the S⁺ and S⁻ stimuli in transfer tests depended on the event that initiated the trial: Pigeons preferred the stimulus from the baseline discrimination whose initiating event was most dissimilar from that preceding the test trial. Preferences were similar but less extreme in the successive condition. In Experiment 2, we investigated whether test preferences depended on the amount of training. A total of 12 pigeons were trained on a pair of simultaneous discriminations, except that test sessions were scheduled after every three baseline sessions. Preferences increased across test sessions but were similar to those in Experiment 1. Together with Vasconcelos, Urcuioli, and Lionello-DeNolf (2007a), our study represents a second failure to replicate Clement et al.’s work ethic effect. The finding that preference depends on the event that initiates the test trial suggests that choice probes may not provide unambiguous assessments of stimulus value.     

Integration and representation in rats’ serial pattern learning in the T-maze

Rats were exposed to three-trial series consisting of reinforced (R) trials and one nonreinforced (N) trial in a fixed order, RRN and RNR (Experiments 1 and 2) or NRR and RRN (Experiment 3), on extended visually distinct runways in a T-maze. When initially presented with the same sequence on each series in a session (separate presentations) with the same runway on all trials within a series (Experiments 1 and 3), all the rats developed slower running speeds on N than on R trials. When a runway was sometimes changed between the first and next two trials during separate presentations training (Experiment 2) or both sequences were later intermixed within each session in each experiment, only rats exposed to each sequence on a specific runway maintained these serial running patterns. Rats displayed serial running patterns on a test RNN sequence similar to that on the RNR sequence (Experiment 2), as would be predicted by an intertrial association model of serial pattern learning (Capaldi & Molina, 1979), but responded on test RRR and NRN sequences (Experiment 3) as would be predicted by an ordinal-trialtag/intratrial association model (Burns, Wiley, & Payne, 1986). Results from test series of free-choice trials in Experiments 1 and 2 failed to support a prediction of the intratrial association model that these rats would integrate RRN and RNR sequences. Rather than always selecting a baited runway on both the second and the third free-choice trials, the rats only selected a baited runway on the third trial on the basis of their choice on the second trial, as would be predicted by the intertrial association model. Only after experiencing all possible outcome sequences during forced-choice training in Experiment 3 did these rats predominantly select a baited runway on every free-choice trial.     

Temporal determinants of occasion setting in feature-positive discriminations

Three experiments examined the acquisition and transfer of Pavlovian feature-positive discriminations (XA+, A?) in rat subjects. To identify the nature of the associations formed in those discriminations, the form of the conditioned responses (CRs) was examined. If the feature,X, and common element, A, cues started and ended together onXA compoud trials, associations betweenX and the food unconditioned stimulus (US) were acquired. If the onsets and/or terminations ofX preceded those of A,X acquired the ability to set the occasion for responding to A, that is, A evoked CRs only onXA compound trials. The acquisition of occasion setting was favored when (1) the onset of X preceded that of A, (2) the interval betweenX and A and/or the US was relatively long, and (3) the termination ofX occurred prior to the onset of A. The occasion-setting power ofX was fairly specific to A:X did not modulate responding evoked by another cue that had been first trained and then extinguished or by a cue that had been paired with the US only a few times. However,X did enhance responding to a cue that had been a common element in another, identical feature-positive discrimination. That transfer was somewhat greater if theX and A terminated together than ifX terminated prior to the onset of A. Implications for theories of stimulus control in Pavlovian conditioning are discussed.     

Effects of pretraining on acquisition of novel configural discriminations in human predictive learning

In two experiments, participants acquired one of two target configural discriminations (a biconditional or negative patterning discrimination) in a predictive learning task. In Experiment 1, participants were pretrained with either a configural or an elemental discrimination; in Experiment 2, they were pretrained with a configural discrimination, an elemental discrimination, or a control discrimination that was not expected to bias them toward elemental or configural processing. In both experiments, acquisition of the target configural discriminations was faster after configural pretraining than after elemental pretraining. In addition, the negative patterning discrimination was acquired faster than the biconditional discrimination. Finally, the results of Experiment 2 were more consistent with the notion that elemental pretraining hindered acquisition of the target discriminations than with the notion that configural pretraining enhanced their acquisition. Implications of these findings are discussed.     

Transfer of occasion setting: The role of generalization decrement

In Experiment 1, pigeons were trained on two feature-positive discriminations. A transfer test examined whether the feature from one discrimination enhanced responding to the target from the other. Transfer was obtained, but it was incomplete; the feature produced less responding to the transfer target than to its own. Experiments 2 and 3 examined whether this attenuation of responding was the product of generalization decrement induced by the novel combination of feature and target on transfer trials. Birds were trained on a pair of pseudo-occasion-setting discriminations in which each target was reinforced whether or not it was preceded by its feature. In a subsequent test, there was no loss of responding when novel combinations of features and targets were introduced; on the contrary, responding was, if anything, enhanced in this condition. This suggests that imperfect transfer is not due to generalization decrement but to the fact that an occasion setter is specific to its target stimulus.     

Testing optimal foraging theory on the radial maze: The role of learning in patch sampling

A four-arm radial maze containing 10 feeders in each arm (patch) was used to study patch sampling in rats. In each of three experiments, rats foraged for 30 sessions. On each session, two randomly chosen patches were baited with food and the remaining two patches were empty. In Experiment 1, the number of baited feeders in baited patches (6) was varied from 1–10 over five groups of subjects. Mean visits to empty patches was an inverse function of 6, as predicted by an optimal foraging model. In Experiments 2 and 3, rats’ ability to discriminate between baited and empty patches was examined when food in baited patches was placed in fixed locations, either in clumps (Experiment 2) or distributed throughout the patch (Experiment 3). Rats in fixed-food-location conditions reliably visited fewer feeders in empty patches than did rats in randomly changing control groups. Examination of within-patch foraging patterns indicated that rats in fixed-food-location groups selectively sampled potentially baited locations and abandoned the patch if food was not found. It is suggested that processes of patch discrimination were responsible for these effects.     

Matching-to-sample in pigeons: In the absence of sample memory,sample frequency is a better predictor of comparison choice than the probability of reinforcement for comparison choice

In matching-to-sample, comparison choice should be controlled by the identity of the sample and, when the sample is not available, by the overall probability of reinforcement associated with each of the comparisons. In the present research, pigeons were trained to match a frequent sample (appearing on 80% of the trials) to one comparison (C _fr) and an infrequent sample (appearing on 20% of the trials) to the other (C _inf), with the number of reinforcements associated with each sample equated. In Experiment 1, the task was identity matching; in Experiments 2 and 3, it was symbolic matching. We asked whether, when control of comparison choice by the sample was reduced (by inserting a delay between the sample and the comparisons), pigeons would choose comparisons on the basis of (1) the number of reinforcements per comparison (and thus show no comparison bias), (2) the comparison associated with the more frequent sample during training (and show a preference forC _fr), or (3) the probability of reinforcement given a correct response (and show a preference forC _inf), or (4) inhibition produced by nonreinforced choice of the more frequently correct comparison (and show a preference forC _inf). Pigeons showed a significant tendency to chooseC _fr. In Experiment 3, we showed that this bias did not result from the effects of intertrial facilitation or interference. Thus, it appears that when control of comparison choice by the sample is reduced, pigeons’ choice is controlled not merely by the probability of reinforcement but also by overall sample frequency.     

Feature-negative effect in rats’ discrimination learning in the runway

In two experiments, rats were trained on a successive go/no-go discrimination problem in the runway in which the positive (S+) and negative (S?) discriminanda were differentiated by the presence or absence of a distinctive feature. The feature in Experiment 1 was a series of flashing lights over the runway. In Experiment 2, the feature was a pretrial reinforcement (Phase 1), or pretrial reinforcement versus pretrial nonreinforcement (Phase 2). The feature signaled S+ trials in feature-positive (FP) groups and S? trials in feature-negative (FN) groups. The original discrimination was reversed in Phase 2 of both experiments. With the exception of the pretrial nonreinforcement groups in Experiment 2, there was an asymmetry in discrimination learning in both phases of both experiments favoring superior discrimination learning by FN subjects over FP subjects, a feature-negative effect. Implications of the results for an information processing account of asymmetries in learning feature discriminations are discussed.     

Deprivation level and choice in pigeons: a test of within-trial contrast

Within-trial contrast has been proposed as a mechanism underlying preferences for stimuli that follow relatively more aversive events over stimuli that follow less aversive events. In this study, we manipulated deprivation level to test within-trial contrast predictions. In Experiment 1, pigeons encountered two discriminative stimuli, one presented when they were deprived and the other when they were prefed. When later given a choice between the two stimuli, pigeons strongly preferred the stimulus encountered when deprived, independently of their deprivation level at test. In Experiment 2, pigeons learned two simultaneous discriminations, one when deprived and the other when prefed. Here, subsequent tests between the two S⁺ or the two S⁻ stimuli revealed no consistent preferences. These contrasting findings suggest that differential aversiveness is necessary but not sufficient to induce preferences via within-trial contrast.     

Acquisition and transfer of control by an ambiguous cue

In three experiments, the specificity of action of occasion setters was examined, using a discretetrial leverpress procedure. Rats’ acquisition of anXA+, A?, XB?, B+ discrimination, in which a single feature cue (X) signaled the reinforcement of responding in the presence of one target cue (A) and the nonreinforcement of responding during another target (B), was no more difficult than acquisition ofXA+, A?, X?, B+ orX+, A?, XB?, B+ discriminations, in whichX signaled only one target-response-reinforcement contingency. In transfer tests,X did not modulate responding controlled by other cues that were untrained or consistently reinforced, either when the elements of the compounds were presented serially or when they were presented simultaneously in training and testing. However, after serial, but not after simultaneous, compound training ,X facilitated responding controlled by a cue that was trained and then extinguished. Implications for the nature of occasion setting and configurai learning are discussed.     

Pavlovian aversive to instrumental appetitive transfer: Evidence for across-reinforcement blocking effects

Rats received Pavlovian aversive (shock) conditioning in which white noise was established for different groups as a CS+, CSO, or CS?. Then, in an appetitive T-maze discrimination, the CSs were presented contingent upon a designated correct response for which food reinforcement was factorially varied at 0, 1, 2, or 4 pellets. Although the CS+ suppressed and the CS? facilitated speed of running in the correct arm at the start of discrimination training, these effects extinguished rapidly and did not interact with reward magnitude. Furthermore, choice learning was faciltated by the CS+ and retarded by the CS?, with these effects being comparable for the 1- to 4-pellet reinforcement conditions, but absent for the 0-pellet condition. These findings are difficult to reconcile with a transfer interpretation positing a general signaling property of the CS and are better interpreted as across-reinforcement blocking effects: By predicting a preferred outcome (safety) comparable to the preferred outcome of food reinforcement, the CS? blocks (retards) the association of reinforcement and the S^D; conversely, by predicting a nonpreferred (shock) outcome discrepant from the preferred food outcome, the CS+ “counterblocks” (enhances) the association of reinforcement and the S^D.     

Spatial configuration and list learning of proximally cued arms by rats in the enclosed four-arm radial maze

In an enclosed four-arm radial maze, after sampling three experimenter-selected baited arms (thestudy segment) and following rotation of the maze, rats had to find the fourth baited arm among all four unblocked arms (test segment). The rats learned this task with two sets of arm cues, objects at arms’ entrances and full arm inserts, each maintained in a fixed configuration. When we changed the configuration of one set of arms to itsmirror image and that of the other set to a moremixed variation by switching opposite and adjacent cued arms, the rats’ accuracy was similarly disrupted (Experiment 1). In Experiment 2, the same rats rapidly recovered their high search accuracy on four new configurations recombined from pairs of adjacent arms and pairs of opposite cued arms from the previous final two configurations. Their test segment search accuracy, however, was again disrupted when these configurations were varied either only over trials’ study segments or only over trials’ test segments. In Experiment 3, however, these rats attained accuracy as high on two sets of cued arms with constantly changing configurations as on two sets with constant configurations. Thus, the rats were able to separately represent four different spatially stable configurations, and then they could learn to represent two of these configurations as lists of spatially irrelevant items. We discuss these findings in terms of association theory and parallel map theory (Jacobs & Schenk, 2003).     

Reward and learning in honeybees: analysis of an overshadowing effect

Previous experiments have shown that honeybees trained with colored targets baited with 5- versus 20-µl drops of sucrose solution fail to develop a preference for the 20-µl color when the location of the drop on each target is marked by a white dot (dot-color overshadowing) but that discrimination is not impaired by dots when the targets differ in odor rather than in color. In Experiments 1–3, dot-color overshadowing failed to appear with differences in concentration rather than amount of sucrose (50% vs. 20% or 0%), but it did appear in Experiments 4 and 5 with a difference in probability of reward (consistent vs. partial). Experiment 6 showed no dot-odor overshadowing with a difference in probability of reward. The results are not generally predictable from the Rescorla-Wagner principle of shared associative strength, but point instead (in conjunction with those of earlier experiments) to competition for visual attention.     

Picturing Objects in Infancy

Infants’ transfer of information from pictures to objects was tested by familiarizing 9‐month‐olds (N = 31) with either a color or black‐and‐white photograph of an object and observing their preferential reaching for the real target object versus a distractor. One condition tested object recognition by keeping both objects visible, and the other tested object representation by hiding both objects. On visible trials, infants reached more for the distractor, indicating they recognized the target object from its picture. On hidden trials, infants reached more for the target object, suggesting they formed a continued representation of the object based on its picture. Photograph color had no effect. Infants thus show picture‐to‐object transfer by 9 months with preferential reaching, even with black‐and‐white pictures.