Control of pigeons’ keypecking topography by a schedule of alternating food and water reward

Food- and water-deprived pigeons keypecked for food or water reinforcement on alternate trials. Under one condition, explicit stimuli on the key provided information about the trial outcome; under another condition, only the alternation schedule provided this information. Latency and/or response rate differences between food- and water-rewarded trials emerged during both conditions. Response topography also differed on food- and water-rewarded trials. These differences, as revealed by duration and force measurements of the keypeck and by human ratings of the pecking responses as being water- or food-related, were anticipatory in nature. These results not only extend previous work on reward alternation and reward-specific response topographies, but also have implications for theories of animal memory. In particular, these results are amenable to memory models that assume that an animal “codes” information that later must be recalled.     

Control of pigeons’ keypecking by the left-right arrangement of stimuli

Control of pigeons’ keypecking by conditionalities in the spatial arrangement of two element stimuli (designated A and B) was investigated. In Experiment 1, reinforcement for keypecking was made conditional upon the left-right location of A and B: Reinforcement was available when A was on the left and B was on the right (AB), but not on BA, AA, or BB trials. The pigeons successfully discriminated the rewarded AB configuration, but only after a stage in which a particular element in a particular location (e.g., A on left) primarily controlled pecking. Experiments 2 and 3 systematically replicated these findings and included controls to discount discrimination of the AB compound on the basis of the temporal order (e.g., A followed by B) rather than the spatial configuration of the elements. During a generalization test in Experiment 4, the elements were presented singly either in the left (AX, BX) or right (XA, XB) positions. As would be expected had the animals learned “A on the left, B on the right is rewarded,” responding on AX trials exceeded that on XA trials, and responding on XB trials exceeded that on BX trials.     

Interocular transfer in pigeons of color discrimination but not motor response training

Adult pigeons with one eye covered were trained to peck a response key using grain as a reinforcer. In subsequent tests, with the trained eye covered and the control eye open, the birds failed to peck the key. The subjects were then divided into two groups for a second experiment. The first group was trained on a single-key, peck/no-peck color discrimination task with the original control eye covered. When tested for interocular transfer of discrimination performance, these birds failed to respond at all. They were then trained to peck a blank response key with the training eye covered and the control eye open. Control-eye tests after this motor response training resulted in excellent transfer of color discrimination performance. The second group of subjects was trained to peck a blank key with first one eye covered and then the other, before monocular discrimination training was begun. These birds showed excellent transfer of discrimination performance during control-eye tests. These results show that, at least in the operant paradigm, motor response training does not transfer interocularly and this lack of transfer may interfere with transfer of discrimination performance.     

The role of keypecking during filled intervals on the judgment of time for empty and filled intervals by pigeons

Pigeons were trained in a within-subjects design to discriminate empty intervals (bound by two 1-sec visual markers) and filled intervals (a continuous visual signal). The intervals were signaled by different visual stimuli and they required responses to different sets of comparison stimuli. In Experiment 1, empty intervals were judged longer than filled intervals. The difference between the point of subjective equality (PSE) for the empty intervals and the PSE for filled intervals increased as the magnitude of the anchor-duration pairs increased. Although there was more pecking during filled intervals than during empty intervals, there was no significant correlation between pecking during filled intervals and the value of the PSE. In Experiment 2, empty intervals continued to be judged longer than filled intervals, even when pigeons were required to refrain from pecking during filled intervals. Keypecking per se does not appear to play an important role in the empty-filled timing difference.     

The effects of contingency avoidance on programmed student achievement

If it is assumed that student failure in the classroom situation is the result of inadequate performance skills rather than a lack of ability, then the attention of the educator should more properly be directed at teaching the student to develop effective methods of studying. The present experiment employed a Programmed Student Achievement (PA) procedure which required that the student evidence 100% mastery of discrete units of material. Two PA contingencies which differed in the intensity of the consequence of failing to evidence mastery were used, testing the hypothesis that the PA effect is analogous to avoidance conditioning. In addition, generalization of the effect of PA on performance in courses taken concurrently was evaluated. The performance of PA students was found to be significantly superior to that of control students on both weekly quizzes and major exams; however, performance under the two experimental contingencies did not differ. Additionally, the PA effect did not generalize to performance in other courses. The implication of these data for an avoidance hypothesis account of the PA effect is discussed.     

Causal and predictive-value judgments,but not predictions,are based on cue-outcome contingency

In three experiments, we show that people respond differently when they make predictions as opposed to when they are asked to estimate the causal or the predictive value of cues: Their response to each of those three questions is based on different sets of information. More specifically, we show that prediction judgments depend on the probability of the outcome given the cue, whereas causal and predictivevalue judgments depend on thecue-outcome contingency. Although these results might seem problematic for most associative models in their present form, they can be explained by explicitly assuming the existence of postacquisition processes that modulate participants’ responses in a flexible way.     

Flavor avoidance learning based on missing calories but not on palatability reduction

Avoidance of a target flavor can be produced by providing rats with a highly nutritious solution of 20?% maltodextrin (20?%Malto) in some sessions and a 3?% maltodextrin (3?%Malto) solution containing the target flavor in intermixed sessions. Since 20?%Malto is both more nutritious and more palatable than 3?%Malto, flavor avoidance could arise because the flavor signals either a reduction in calories or reduced palatability, or both. Pilot testing established that rats strongly preferred 3?%Malto plus 0.1?% saccharin to both unflavored 3?%Malto and unflavored 20?%Malto. The two main experiments tested whether the palatability difference, which the pilot data had suggested was larger than the difference between 20?%Malto and 3?%Malto, could produce flavor avoidance. In both experiments, one group of rats were given 3?%Malto plus 0.1?% saccharin on some days, intermixed with other days on which this group was given 3?%Malto plus the target flavor, almond. Neither when trained and tested under conditions of food deprivation (Experiment 1) nor when trained and tested sated (Experiment 2) did palatability reduction produce almond avoidance. In contrast, calorie reduction produced almond avoidance under both conditions. These results suggest that flavor avoidance can be produced by intermixed training involving solutions that differ in nutritious value and palatability, but not when they differ only in palatability.     

Pain-elicited aggression in the squirrel monkey: An implicit avoidance contingency

Squirrel monkeys were given either forward pairings of a bite-tube CS and shock US or backward pairings of these stimuli. Backward pairings produced stronger control of biting by the bite tube alone than did forward pairings. In a second experiment, subjects received backward pairings of US and CS with either a fixed ITI or a random ITI. Conditioned biting was obtained only when trials were presented with a fixed ITI. The magnitude of unconditioned biting was also significantly greater with the fixed ITI. It was argued that these results demonstrate that conditioning in this situation depends upon the degree to which biting predicts a relatively long shock-free period. When trials occur randomly in time, biting predicts no definite shock-free period; hence, it is not learned.     

The source of keypecking in autoshaping

Pigeons were trained to step on a treadle to operate a grain hopper, under the control of an auditory stimulus. Subsequently, autoshaping consisted of pairing illumination of a response key with some of the subsequent tone presentations, reinforcement occurring only after a treadle response. One control group did not have a treadle or a treadle-response requirement. A second control group received random presentations of an illuminated key. Neither paired nor random key presentations had any effect on treadlepressing. However, the paired key groups showed acquisition of pecking to the key, while the random group did not. The data suggest that pecking in the autoshaping procedure is not profitably analyzed as part of an operant sequence and it indicates that autoshaping involves a structuring of response repertoires that may well be independent of the effects of contingent reinforcement and shaping. Autoshaping seems to be governed by empirical temporal laws akin to those of classical conditioning.

     

Conditioned avoidance responses survive contingency degradation in the garden slug,Lehmannia valentiana

Joint presentations of a conditioned stimulus (CS) and an unconditioned stimulus (US) strengthen the contingency between them, whereas presentations of one stimulus without the other degrade this contingency. For example, the CS can be presented without the US either before conditioning (CS–no US and then CS–US; latent inhibition) or after conditioning (CS–US and then CS–no US; extinction). In vertebrate subjects and several invertebrate species, a time lapse usually results in a return of the conditioned response, or spontaneous recovery. However, in land mollusks, spontaneous recovery from extinction has only recently been reported, and response recovery after latent inhibition has not been reported. In two experiments, using conditioned aversion to a food odor as a measure of learning and memory retention, we observed contingency degradation via latent inhibition (Experiment 1) and extinction (Experiment 2) in the common garden slug, Lehmannia valentiana. In both situations, the contingency degradation procedure successfully attenuated conditioned responding, and delaying testing by several days resulted in recovery of the conditioned response. This suggests that the CS–US association survived the degradation manipulation and was retained over an interval of several days.     

Pigeons and rats observe signals of when but not where food will occur

Pigeons and rats were exposed to a mixed variable-time extinction schedule of reinforcement. During the variable-time component of the schedule, response-independent food was delivered at either a left or a right feeder. The animals were allowed to perform observing responses to produce either stimuli paired with the component of the mixed schedule that was in effect (temporal information) or stimuli paired with the feeder that might deliver food (spatial information). Only stimuli conveying temporal information reinforced observing. This result contradicts a prediction of the “information hypothesis” of observing, but is consistent with various conditioned-reinforcement interpretations of observing.     

Maintenance of observing responses with the less highly valued stimulus in pigeons

Previous research has shown that the more valued stimulus will maintain observing responses but the less valued stimulus will not. In the first part of this experiment, it was shown that the removal of the stimulus associated with the fixed-ratio component of a multiple schedule (mult FI 2 min, FR 35) abolished observing responses. In the next part, the ratio stimulus was phased out by making it available during some ratios but not during others. Observing responses were maintained following the phasing procedure even when all ratio stimuli were unavailable. In the third part, all stimuli, both ratio and interval, were unavailable. Observing responses declined under this condition and increased again when the stimulus associated with the interval was again made available. It is hypothesized that observing responses will be maintained as long as they permit the maintenance of a discrimination.     

Level of deprivation does not affect degree of discounting in pigeons

Two experiments tested the effects of food deprivation on discounting in pigeons. An adjusting-amount procedure was used to estimate the subjective value of food at delays ranging from 1 to 24 s. Experiment 1 compared pigeons’ discounting of delayed food reinforcers at 75 %–80 % and 90 %–95 % of free-feeding weight. Experiment 2 compared discounting under 1- and 23-h food deprivation. In both experiments at both deprivation levels, discounting was well described by the hyperboloid discounting function. No systematic effect of level of deprivation on degree of discounting was observed in either experiment. This finding is consistent with the view that pigeons’ choices are controlled by the relative, rather than the absolute, value of reinforcers.     

The differential outcomes effect in pigeons is not reduced by eliminating response-outcome associations: Support for a two-process account

Animals perform two-choice conditional discriminations at a higher level if each of the two correct responses to the comparison stimuli is reinforced with a different outcome. According to the two-process view, this differential outcomes effect (DOE) results from the response-cuing function of expectancies generated by the conditional stimuli (i.e., samples). According to the shared-outcomes view, differential response-outcome associations contribute to the effect. In the present research, pigeons that were trained with differential outcomes associated with the samples, butnot with the comparisons, revealed a DOE during delay testing that was comparable to that obtained in a “true” differential-outcomes group. Thus, a two-process interpretation of the DOE was supported. In the second experiment, transfer testing with sample replacement confirmed these findings and, in addition, provided evidence that differential sample behaviors exerted some control over zero-delayed choice.     

Conjunctive differentiation of gape during food-reinforced keypecking in the pigeon

The pigeon’s keypecking response includes both a head-transport (peck) and a jaw-movement (gape) component. Because the two components are mediated by different effector systems, they may potentially be viewed as orthogonal responses. A response differentiation procedure was used to bring gape amplitude under operant control. The procedure employed a conjunctive response requirement in which reinforcement was contingent upon both gaping and key contact. The key-contact requirement was held constant, while the gape contingency was systematically varied to reinforce either decreases or increases in gape amplitude with respect to baseline. The procedure was effective in shifting the gape distributions in both the upward and downward directions and in inducing new gape values that deviated from the baseline in the reinforced direction. These observations indicate that gape may be brought under operant control. However, subjects showed a bias in the differentiation of the gape response, such that larger gapes were more readily differentiated than smaller gapes. The results are discussed in relation to the methodological utility of the paradigm, the problem of biological constraints on learning, and the heuristic utility of a response components analysis.     

Continuity and intensity of shock in one-way avoidance learning in the rat

Six groups of rats (n = 16) differed with respect to the continuity of shock (continuous or discontinuous) and the shock intensity (.3, .8, or 1.6 mA) used during 65 one-way avoidance-conditioning trials. In general, a facilitative effect on one-way avoidance learning was obtained for continuous as opposed to discontinuous shock and for strong as opposed to weak shock. For both variables, the results are opposite to those obtained in discriminated shuttlebox-avoidance and barpress avoidance tasks. The data support an interpretation of the effect of continuity of shock which holds that discontinuous shock is, in effect, less intense than continuous shock. This interpretation allows the effects of the continuity-of-shock variable to be incorporated within the effective reinforcement theory of avoidance learning which has been proposed to account for shock-intensity effects in various avoidance tasks.     

Time horizon and choice by pigeons in a prey-selection task

In two operant simulations of prey selection, the choice behavior of pigeons and the predictions of a model of the effect of session length on optimal prey selection were compared. All but one of the predictions were confirmed. In the first experiment, a higher proportion of “bad” items (comparatively long delays to food) was accepted in 10-min sessions in one operant chamber than in the first 10 min of 20-min sessions in a different chamber. The proportion of bad items accepted increased toward the end of the 20-min sessions. In the second experiment, the birds were exposed both to 20-min sessions in one distinctively marked operant chamber and to sessions of variable length, with a mean of 20 min, in another. A higher proportion of bad items was accepted in the variable-session chamber than in the fixed-session chamber at the beginning of the 20-min sessions. This difference decreased toward the end of the sessions but did not reverse as expected. In both experiments, an independent test analogous to the peak procedure was administered to establish whether the birds discriminated among the different session lengths.     

Landmark use by pigeons in a touch-screen spatial search task

Pigeons obtained food by pecking at an unmarked target location on a video screen equipped with a touch-sensitive frame. The target area was located near the top edge of the screen in Experiment 1 and near the left edge of the screen in Experiment 2. On baseline trials, a graphic landmark was located below and left of the target (Experiment 1) or below and right of the target (Experiment 2). In both experiments, baseline search distributions showed a single peak and were roughly symmetrical about the target area in both horizontal and vertical dimensions. On occasional test trials, the landmark was shifted horizontally, vertically, or diagonally by 1.5 cm or 3 cm. In both experiments, landmark shifts in the dimension parallel to the nearest edge produced systematic shifts in the peak place of search. Landmark shifts in the dimension perpendicular to the nearest edge produced inconsistent (Experiment 1) or relatively small (Experiment 2) shifts in peak place. The magnitude of the behavioral shift was always less than the magnitude of the landmark shift and was not consistently greater when the landmark was shifted by 3 cm than when it was shifted by 1.5 cm. These results demonstrated that pigeons can accurately locate an unmarked target area in a two-dimensional vertical arena and that their use of landmarks for spatial localization is similar in several respects to that found in open-field spatial search tasks.     

Preexposure to situational cues and shock intensity in two-way avoidance learning

Four groups of rats (n = 16) received 65 two-way avoidance learning trials. The groups differed with respect to the amount of exposure (0 or 4 h) to the situational cues of the apparatus prior to avoidance learning and the intensity of shock (.3 or 1.6 mA) during learning. Superior avoidance performance with weak as compared to strong shock was obtained in the nonpreexposed groups. This inverse relationship between avoidance performance and shock intensity, typical of two-way avoidance learning, was eliminated in the preexposed groups. Presumably, a latent inhibition effect occurred in the strong-shock group, which resulted in a retardation of the conditioning of fear to the situational cues and a consequent improvement in performance. The results are consistent with the effective reinforcement theory, which emphasizes in aversive learning the detrimental effect of large amounts of fear remaining following a response.