Directed forgetting in pigeons: Analysis of cue functions

In delayed matching-to-sample with pigeons, brief postsample cues signaled different trial outcomes. The normal comparison stimuli followed the cue to remember (R cue). In the comparison-omission procedure, comparison stimuli and reinforcement were omitted following the cue to forget (F cue). In the comparison-substitution procedure, comparison stimuli were replaced by a single stimulus and reinforcement for a single response following the F cue. Infrequent probe trials revealed that F cues disrupted matching, with the amount of accuracy loss dependent on the length of the cue-comparison delay. These results, however, were found only with the comparison-omission procedure (Experiment 1). Replacing the comparison stimuli with another simultaneous (unconditional) discrimination revealed no accuracy loss in F-cue probes (Experiment 2), even though choice latencies were again lengthened by F cues. These results suggest that, while the F cue interferes with performance at the time of a retention test by slowing choices, it also interferes with sample retention. Alternative models of the cuing effect and its apparent dependence on end-of-trial reward are outlined.     

Directed forgetting effects in pigeons: Remember cues initiate rehearsal

Pigeons were trained in a two-choice delayed matching-to-sample task with red and green hues. A brief postsample cue (a vertical or horizontal line) signaled whether the comparison stimuli would be presented or omitted on each trial. Comparison stimuli were always presented following the remember-cue (R-cue) trial, but never following the forget-cue (F-cue) and no-cue trials. In Experiment 1, matching accuracy on F-cue and no-cue trials was equivalent and was considerably inferior to accuracy on R-cue trials. In Experiment 2, the placement of the postsample cue was manipulated. Matching accuracy decreased as the R cue was delayed in the retention interval, but performance in the F-cue condition was not affected. These data indicate that the no-cue condition can function as an implicit F cue and that the R cue can function to initiate and maintain rehearsal.     

Differential outcome expectancies and directed forgetting effects in pigeons

Pigeons were trained in a two-choice delayed matching-to-sample task with red and green hues. A brief postsample cue (a vertical or horizontal line) signaled whether the comparison stimuli would be presented or omitted on each trial. Comparison stimuli were always presented following the remember (R) cue, but never following the forget (F) cue or no-cue trials. One group of birds, the differential outcome (DO) group, received reinforcement with a probability of 1.0 for correct responses following one sample stimulus and a probability of 0.2 for correct responses following the other sample stimulus. The nondifferential outcome (NDO) group received reinforcement with a probability of 0.6 for correct responses to either stimulus. The effect of postsample cues was greater for the DO group than for the NDO group. Relative to the NDO group, the DO group displayed higher accuracy on R-cue trials and lower accuracy on F- and no-cue trials. Both tendencies contributed to the enhanced cue effectiveness obtained in the DO group. The results indicate that outcome expectancies are subject to maintenance rehearsal, which comes under the control of postsample R and F cues. They also suggest that maintenance rehearsal may be easier to sustain under DO conditions than under NDO conditions when a memory test is anticipated, but that it may be easier to terminate maintenance rehearsal under DO conditions when a memory test is not anticipated. The results are inconsistent with the assumption that the rehearsal of outcome expectancies is automatic.     

Differential effects of omitting comparison stimuli on symbolic and identity matching to sample: Evidence for altered instructional processes in pigeon short-term memory

Two experiments were performed to determine the effects of omitting the comparison stimuli in a matching-to-sample task. In Experiment 1, birds were trained initially on both symbolic and identity matching to sample. Comparison stimuli were then omitted following the presentation of a particular sample stimulus, and this decreased the number of sample (observing) responses. The reintroduction of the comparison stimuli on subsequent probe trials revealed that the accuracy of symbolic matching was reduced to chance levels, while identity matching accuracy was significantly below chance. In Experiment 2, a similar procedure was employed; however, observing responses to the comparison-omitted samples were maintained by direct reinforcement (fixed ratio 20). Matching accuracy during probe trials was again at chance levels for symbolic matching but, contrary to Experiment 1, was significantly above chance for identity matching. The differential effects of omitting comparison stimuli on symbolic and identity matching trials in these two experiments were interpreted within a framework which assumes that instructional processes are altered by comparison-omission procedures.     

An evaluation of the role of dual coding in mediating the effect of incorrectly cuing the comparison dimension in delayed matching in pigeons

Pigeons were trained on delayed matching-to-sample trials in which red and green sample stimuli were equally often followed by color comparisons and by line-orientation comparisons. The color samples were preceded and accompanied by cues (a triangle or a black dot) that signaled whether the comparisons on that trial would be colors or lines. Length of the retention interval was manipulated during testing, and probe trials were included on which the dimension of the comparison stimuli either was cued incorrectly or was not cued. Accuracy on incorrectly cued and on no-cue trials was less than that on correctly cued trials, and the magnitude of this effect was not influenced by the length of the retention interval. Accuracy on incorrectly cued and on no-cue trials was equivalent, and was greater than chance. The data are inconsistent with two dual-coding interpretations of the effects of incorrectly cuing the dimension of the comparison stimuli in which it is held that both retrospective and prospective sample coding occurs in this task.     

Flexible coding of temporal information by pigeons: Event durations as remember and forget cues for temporal samples

The ability of pigeons to use event durations as remember (R) and forget (F) cues for temporal samples was examined. Pigeons were required to indicate whether a houselight sample stimulus was short (2 sec) or long (6 sec) by pecking a red or a green comparison stimulus. After training with a constant 10-sec delay interval, temporal cues (illumination of the center key) were presented 2 sec after the offset of the temporal samples. For one group, a short (2-sec) temporal cue served as the R cue and a long (6-3ec) temporal cue served as the F cue. This was reversed for a second group of birds. During training, comparison stimuli were always presented following the temporal R cue, but never following the temporal F cue. Tests for the effectiveness of the temporal R and F cues showed that F cues were equally effective in reducing matching accuracy in both groups of birds. It was concluded that pigeons used the duration of the cue to determine whether or not to rehearse the memory code for the temporal sample.     

Effects of signaled retention intervals on pigeon short-term memory

In three delayed matching-to-sample experiments, pigeons were given distinctive stimuli that were either correlated or uncorrelated with the scheduled retention intervals. Experiment 1 employed a single-key, go/no-go matching procedure with colors as the sample and test stimuli; lines of differing orientations signaled short or long delays for one group, whereas the lines and the delays were uncorrelated for the other group. The function relating discriminative test performance to delay length was steeper in the correlated group than in the uncorrelated group. In addition, the line orientation stimuli controlled differential rates of sample responding in the correlated group, but not in the uncorrelated group. In Experiment 2, subjects extensively trained with correlated line orientations were exposed to reversed cues on probe trials. Miscuing decreased discriminative test responding at the short delay, but enhanced it at the long delay. As in the correlated group of the first experiment, rates of sample keypecking were higher in the presence of the “short” time tag than in the presence of the ”long” time tag. Experiment 3 used a three-key choice-matching procedure and a within-subjects design, and equated reinforcement rate at the short and long delays. When auditory stimuli were correlated with delay length, the function relating choice accuracy to delay was steeper than when the stimuli and the delays were uncorrelated. The consistent effects of signaled retention intervals on memory performance may be understood in terms of differential attention to the sample stimuli.     

A differential-outcome effect in pigeons using spatial hedonically nondifferential outcomes

We examined the extent to which nonhedonically different differential outcomes involving feeder location control pigeons’ comparison choices in matching to sample. In Experiment 1, we showed that differential feeder location outcomes associated with each of two samples can facilitate delayed-matching accuracy. In Experiment 2, we found positive transfer following training on two matching tasks with differential feeder location outcomes when samples from one task were replaced by samples from the other task. In Experiment 3, we found that when differential-outcome expectations could no longer serve as the cues for comparison choice, sample stimuli continued to exert some control over choice of comparisons. The results indicate that differential outcomes (involving feeder location) that presumably do not differ in hedonic value are sufficient to control comparison choice. Thus, the differential hedonic value of the outcome elicited by the sample does not appear to be a requirement of the differential-outcome effect. Furthermore, these differential outcomes appear to augment matching accuracy, but they do not eliminate control by the samples.     

Pigeons’ short-term memories for surprising vs. expected reinforcement and nonreinforcement

Pigeons performed a delayed matching-to-sample task in which they matched red and green disks as comparison stimuli to samples of food and no food. The birds were also taught a discrimination between two lines: vertical (S+) followed by food and horizontal (S?) followed by no food. The two kinds of trials were then chained in infrequent probes such that (a) S+ and S? preceded samples of food and no food, (b) a longer than usual delay occurred, and then, (c) the comparison stimuli were presented. Therefore, in probes when S+ preceded food and S? preceded no food, the samples were “expected. ” But in probes when S+ signaled no food and S? signaled food, the samples were “surprising. ” Matching to surprising samples was more accurate than matching to expected samples. This result completes a pattern of findings implying that surprising reinforcers enhance learning and also persist (are longer rehearsed) in short-term memory.     

Effects of varying trial distribution,intra- and extramaze cues,and amount of reward on proactive interference in the radial maze

Rats are typically less accurate in their arm selections in the radial maze over successive trials in a session (Roberts & Dale, 1981). In the present study, rats’ choice accuracy declined when such trials were separated by 2-min (massed) but not by 2-h (spaced) intertriai intervals. Changing intramaze visual/tactile arm stimuli (Experiments 1 and 3) or extramaze landmark stimuli (Experiment 4) between trials weakened the massed-trials effect, but changing the number of food pellets per arm, either alone or in conjunction with changes in intramaze cues (Experiments 2 and 3), did not. The rats also tended to avoid the spatial locations of their last four choices on a previous trial during their first four choices on a current trial, and more so with massed than with spaced trials. These findings indicate that intertriai proactive interference (PI) occurred only with massed trials and was weakened by changing intra- and extramaze cues between such trials.     

Delayed matching to sample: Reinforcement has opposite effects on resistance to change in two related procedures

The effects of reinforcement on delayed matching to sample (DMTS) have been studied in two within-subjects procedures. In one, reinforcer magnitudes or probabilities vary from trial to trial and are signaled within trials (designated signaled DMTS trials). In the other, reinforcer probabilities are consistent for a series of trials produced by responding on variable-interval (VI) schedules within multiple-schedule components (designated multiple VI DMTS). In both procedures, forgetting functions in rich trials or components are higher than and roughly parallel to those in lean trials or components. However, during disruption, accuracy has been found to decrease more in rich than in lean signaled DMTS trials and, conversely, to decrease more in lean than in rich multiple VI DMTS components. In the present study, we compared these procedures in two groups of pigeons. In baseline, forgetting functions in rich trials or components were higher than and roughly parallel to those in lean trials or components, and were similar between the procedures. During disruption by prefeeding or extinction, accuracy decreased more in rich signaled DMTS trials, whereas accuracy decreased more in lean multiple VI DMTS components. These results replicate earlier studies and are predicted by a model of DMTS from Nevin, Davison, Odum, and Shahan (2007).     

On two effects of signaling the consequences for remembering

Five pigeons were trained to perform a delayed matching-to-sample task in which red- and green-colored keys were presented as sample and choice stimuli, and the duration of a delay interval varied across trials. Experiment 1 investigated the effects on delayed-matching accuracy of signaling different durations of food access for the two correct responses (the differential-outcomes effect), and of signaling nondifferential but larger durations for both responses (the signaled-magnitudes effect). In Condition 1, a vertical bar on either sample signaled different rewards (or different outcomes, DOs) for correct red and correct green responses (0.5 and 3.5 sec, respectively), and a horizontal bar signaled equal durations of food access (or same outcomes, SOs) for these responses (1.5 sec). In Condition 2, the horizontal bar signaled equally large rewards for the two correct responses (3.5 sec), and the vertical bar signaled equally small rewards (0.5 sec). Delayed-matching accuracies were higher on DO trials than on SO trials, and they were higher on large-reward trials than on small-reward trials. However, analyses of discriminability estimates as a function of delay-interval duration revealed differences between the forgetting functions reflecting these two effects. Signaling DOs increased the initial level of the function and reduced its slope relative to signaling SOs, whereas signaling larger rewards increased the initial level of the function but did not affect its slope relative to signaling smaller rewards. Experiment 2 investigated whether the difference between the initial levels of DO and SO functions in Condition 1 resulted from overall longer food access on the former trials. However, varying the food-access times on SO trials across three conditions (0.5, 3.5, and 1.5 sec) failed to produce systematic effects consistent with this hypothesis. The results are discussed with respect to the mechanisms that could be responsible for the two effects.     

Restricted processing of simultaneously presented brightness and pattern stimuli in pigeons

Performance during simultaneous matching-to-sample was assessed in pigeons presented with element and compound visual samples. In Experiment 1, pigeons were trained with a symbolic matching procedure, in which different pairs of colored comparison cues presented on side keys were mapped onto a bright or dim houselight as one pair of sample stimuli and onto vertical and horizontal lines on the center key as a second pair of sample stimuli. They were then tested with houselight-line compound samples. It was found that matching accuracy for lines was significantly diminished with compound samples relative to element samples. Conversely, house-light intensities were matched as well with compound samples as with element samples. In Experiment 2, a similar effect was found with pigeons that had been trained to match only line samples. In Experiment 3, it was discovered that sample duration had no influence on the matching deficit found with lines following compound samples in birds either trained or not trained to match houselight intensities. These results, taken in combination with recent findings from experiments with auditory-visual compounds, suggest a restricted processing account of pigeon processing of simultaneously presented stimuli from different sources.     

Differential-outcomes effect using hedonically nondifferential outcomes with delayed matching to sample by pigeons

When differential outcomes follow correct responses to each of two comparison stimuli in matching to sample, relative to the appropriate control condition, higher matching accuracy is typically found, especially when there is a delay between the sample and the comparison stimuli. In two experiments, we examined whether this differential-outcomes effect depends on using outcomes that differ in hedonic value (e.g., food vs. water). In Experiment 1, we found facilitated retention when a blue houselight followed correct responses to one comparison stimulus and a white houselight followed correct responses to the other, prior to nondifferential presentations of food. In Experiment 2, we found facilitated retention again when a blue houselight followed correct responses to one comparison stimulus and a tone followed correct responses to the other, prior to nondifferential presentations of food. The results of both experiments indicate that the differential-outcomes effect does not depend on a difference in hedonic value of the differential outcomes, and they suggest that outcome anticipations consisting of relatively arbitrary but differential stimulus representations can serve as cues for comparison choice.     

Control of delayed matching-to-sample performance using directed forgetting techniques

Pigeons acquired a successive delayed matching-to-sample task at a delay interval of 4 sec. Instructional stimuli were interpolated in the delay interval signaling the occurrence (R-cue) or nonoccurrence (F-cue) of comparison stimuli, a procedure modeled after the directed forgetting techniques commonly used in human memory studies. Accuracy on probe trials (in which comparison stimuli were presented following F-cues) was reduced relative to performance on standard training trials in which R-cues signaling the occurrence of comparison stimuli appeared in the same temporal location. The extent of the reduction in accuracy depended on the temporal location of the F-cues, the reduction being greater when the cue was more remote from the comparison stimuli. Examination of retention interval keypecking revealed a strong correlation between matching performance and retention interval responding.     

The effects of sodium pentobarbital on matching and oddity performance in pigeons

The effects of sodium pentobarbital on matching and oddity performance in pigeons were examined by employing a higher-order conditional discrimination paradigm. In this paradigm, the line orientation which was superimposed on all of the response keys signaled whether a response to the matching color or a response to the nonmatching color was correct. All pigeons had extensive previous training in this paradigm and were tested at each of three dosage levels: 5, 7.5, and 10 mg/kg. For all birds, a clear dose-related decrease in accuracy was observed; however, the effect was not differential for matching and oddity trials. Accuracy reductions were accompanied by an increase in position preference on both types of trials. The data are compatible with recent claims that physical identity of the sample and correct comparison stimulus need have no special status for pigeons.     

Orienting Attention Within Visual Short‐Term Memory: Development and Mechanisms

How does developing attentional control operate within visual short‐term memory (VSTM)? Seven‐year‐olds, 11‐year‐olds, and adults (total n = 205) were asked to report whether probe items were part of preceding visual arrays. In Experiment 1, central or peripheral cues oriented attention to the location of to‐be‐probed items either prior to encoding or during maintenance. Cues improved memory regardless of their position, but younger children benefited less from cues presented during maintenance, and these benefits related to VSTM span over and above basic memory in uncued trials. In Experiment 2, cues of low validity eliminated benefits, suggesting that even the youngest children use cues voluntarily, rather than automatically. These findings elucidate the close coupling between developing visuospatial attentional control and VSTM.     

Stimulus control in multiple temporal discriminations

In multiple fixed interval (FI) schedules, rats are trained to discriminate different FIs that are signaled by different stimuli. After extensive training, the different stimuli often acquire control over performance, observed by an earlier increase in responding for stimuli that signal shorter FIs, as compared with stimuli that signal longer FIs. The order in which the different FIs are trained, either intermixed across cycles or in blocks of several cycles, may seem irrelevant given that average performance at asymptote may be similar. In this study, rats were trained in two procedures with multiple FIs presented intermixed within sessions or in blocks of one interval per session. Similar performance was observed at asymptote, but an inspection of early cycles in each session revealed that different stimuli acquired control over performance only when trained intermixed within each session. Although the stimuli reliably signaled the upcoming FI, when trained in successive blocks of 60 cycles, rats rapidly adjusted performance early in the sessions on the basis of the temporal aspects of the task, and not on the basis of the stimulus presented in the current cycle. These results are discussed in terms of overshadowing of the stimuli by temporal cues and in terms of conditions under which a stimulus acquires control over performance.     

Event duration memory: The effects of delay-interval illumination and instructional cuing

The effect of interference treatments on pigeons’ working memory for event duration was investigated, using a successive matching-to-sample procedure. In three experiments, birds were trained to match different keylight durations (2 or 6 sec) to different comparison colors (red or green) following delays of 0 to 12 sec. The interfering effect of delay-interval illumination and illumination change was assessed in Experiments 1 and 2. It was found that the absolute levels of houselight illumination influenced delayed matching accuracy. Birds trained with houselight illumination showed larger decrements in matching accuracy with increasing delays than did birds trained with darkened delay intervals. In addition, increases in delay-interval illumination relative to baseline produced greater interference with delayed matching accuracy than did decreases in houselight illumination relative to baseline. In Experiment 3, the effect of interpolated instructional cues to remember or forget was examined. As in other directed forgetting experiments employing conventional modality characteristics as the samples to be remembered, it was found that instructional cues to forget, presented during the delay interval, reduced matching accuracy compared to instructional cues to remember. It was concluded that these findings support models of temporal memory that assume temporal information is coded into categorical information onto some nontime dimension over models that assume temporal information is remembered amodally as specific time durations.     

The acquisition of trace supraordinate stimulus control in pigeons

Match-to-sample and oddity-from-sample problems with four colors were acquired by two pigeons under the supraordinate control of a line tilt superimposed on samples, Since the supraordinate stimulus terminated before the comparison stimuli were presented, accurate matching and oddity performance indicated trace stimulus control as well, The temporal extent of trace control was assessed in one subject by presenting probes—trials without a line tilt on the sample—in which the basis of correct responding was the supraordinate stimulus presented on the previous trial, Trace supraordinate control did not extend between trials, Subsequently, the delay between the termination of the supraordinate stimulus and the presentation of the comparison stimuli was gradually increased within a trial, Both subjects were able to perform matching and oddity over longer delays, and eventually on probe trials, although accuracy decreased, Results were discussed in terms of instructional stimulus control and memory.