Effects of discrimination training on stimulus generalization in pigeons: Role of resistance to extinction and response-produced stimuli

In Experiment 1, two groups (n = 10) of pigeons received 17 sessions of TD (true discrimination) or ND (nondifferential) training with line angles. Seventeen sessions of SS (single stimulus) training with a wavelength preceded this training and two followed it. Subsequent wavelength generalization testing in extinction revealed a sharper TD than ND gradient. This slope difference was evident from the very first test stimulus presentation and remained stable throughout testing. As a consequence of substantial overtraining, there was no reduction of response strength and no sharpening of generalization during testing for either group. In Experiment 2, two groups (n = 16) of pigeons received 10 sessions of TD or PD (pseudodiscrimination) training with line angles, followed by four sessions of SS training with a single wavelength. During this training and in subsequent wavelength generalization testing in extinction, brief blackouts separated stimulus presentations. Again, the TD group yielded the sharper gradient. Although responding weakened and the gradients sharpened during the test, these effects were comparable in the two groups. Furthermore, gradients based on the percentage of trials with at least one response showed the same TD-PD slope difference. This finding indicates that differential control over responding by response-produced feedback is inadequate to account for the TD-PD difference in generalization slope. Both experiments indicate that a purported difference in resistance to extinction is also an inadequate explanation.     

Proactive interference in the retention of “attentional sets” in pigeons

In Experiment 1, six groups of pigeons (n=8) were tested for wavelength generalization either immediately or 24 h after learning a successive discrimination, with 550 nm reinforced and a black vertical line extinguished. The groups differed in the stimulus present during single stimulus pretraining, which was 550 nm (pretrain S+), the vertical Une (pretrain S?), or a neutral dim white light (pretrain Sn), respectively. The three immediate generalization gradients were steep and indistinguishable, reflecting only the immediately preceding discrimination training condition. The three delay gradients were flatter, with the flattening particularly marked in the pretrain S? group. This was interpreted as proactive interference (PI) resulting from the memory that both the 550-nm and the line stimuli had previously been reinforced. In Experiment 2, two (TD) groups of pigeons (n=16) were given single stimulus training with a 555-nm keylight followed by eight sessions of discrimination training with two line angles, then one session of non-differential (ND) training with the same two lines, and then a wavelength generalization test either immediately or after a 24-h delay. Two other (hold) groups (n=16) received similar training, except for the TD Une angle training sessions, in these hold groups, the wavelength gradient was flatter in a delayed test; in the TD groups it was steeper, indicating PI from the prior TD training. These two experiments suggest that the “attentional sets,” which purportedly result from TD and ND training, may fruitfully be viewed as target memories subject to the principles of interference theory.     

Attentional enhancement in matching-to-sample: Facilitation in matching acquisition by sample-discrimination training

In three experiments, we examined how matching-to-sample by pigeons is affected by discrimination versus nondifferential training between the matching stimuli. In Experiment 1A, pigeons responding differentially to the sample stimuli off-baseline acquired accurate matching performances more rapidly than did pigeons responding nondifferentially to those same stimuli. In Experiment 1B, tests involving reversal of the off-baseline requirements demonstrated that the birds were primarily controlled in their matching choices by the sample stimuli. The results of Experiment 2 showed that off-baseline nondifferential training did not retard acquisition relative to comparable training between stimuli unrelated to the matching task. Together, these results suggest that discrimination training can facilitate matching acquisition by enhancing attention to the sample stimuli.     

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.     

Conditioned reinforcement and complex discrimination: Can conditioned reinforcing value be specific to a complex of three cues?

The present experiment is concerned with the nature of the cues that might acquire conditioned reinforcing value, and the ways in which such cues might interact with one another. Red and green colored keylights were differentially paired with food dependent upon the houselight context (A or B) and the trial type (training or choice/forced). The duration of the colored keylights was varied between groups in an attempt to manipulate the effectiveness of the short-term memory of trial-type cues at the trial’s end. The red and green stimuli were of 30 sec duration for Group 30 and of 3 sec duration for Group 3. The results indicated that the choices of the pigeons in Group 30 were influenced by the houselight context present and by the keylight color. The choices of the pigeons in Group 3 seemed to be influenced by the houselight context present, the keylight color, and the memory of trial-type cues. Memory cues for trial antecedents were not overshadowed by presumably more salient external houselight stimuli for the pigeons in Group 3. Two alternative explanations for the results are discussed, and determined to be unlikely based on the results of an earlier experiment. The present results are related to a model of the conditioned reinforcing value of momentary stimuli and of transmission of conditioned reinforcing value.     

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.     

The effect of filled and empty intervals on clock and memory processes in pigeons

According to the mixed memory model (Penney, Gibbon, & Meck, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 26, 1770–1787, 2000), different clock rates for stimuli with different nontemporal properties must be stored within a single reference memory distribution in order to detect a difference between the clock rates of the different signals. In Experiment 1, pigeons were trained in a between-subjects design to discriminate empty intervals (bound by two 1-s 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. Empty intervals were judged as being longer than filled intervals. The difference between the point of subjective equality (PSE) for the empty intervals and the PSE for the filled intervals increased proportionally as the magnitudes of the anchor duration pairs were increased from 2 and 8 s to 4 and 16 s. In Experiment 2, the pigeons were trained to discriminate intervals signaled by the absence of houselight illumination (Group Empty) or the presence of houselight illumination (Group Filled). The psychophysical timing functions for these intervals were identical to each other. The results of Experiment 1 indicate that memory mixing is not necessary for detecting a timing difference between empty and filled intervals in pigeons. The results of Experiment 2 suggest that the nature of the stimuli that signal the empty and filled intervals impacts how pigeons judge the durations of empty and filled intervals.     

Retrieval of memory in the pigeon by context manipulations

In Experiment 1, 12 pigeons were given eight sessions of VI single stimulus training with a color in a particular context followed by eight sessions of similar training with a line angle in another context. On the next day, half of the subjects were tested for wavelength and angularity generalization in each of the two contexts, a procedure that was thus consistent with training for one dimension and inconsistent for the other. The subjects made significantly more responses to each training stimulus under the consistent context condition, but there was no difference in absolute or relative generalization slopes. In Experiment 2, 12 pigeons were trained as in Experiment 1, but during generalization testing they were exposed to both contexts sequentially. Under the consistent context condition, the subjects responded more to the two training stimuli and yielded sharper absolute and relative wavelength generalization gradients: Under the inconsistent context condition, responding to the training wavelength was substantially disrupted. Thus, under appropriate testing conditions, contextual control over both the amount and the selectivity of responding can be demonstrated.     

Alterations in the memory code for temporal events induced by differential outcome expectancies in pigeons

The effect of differential outcome expectancies on memory for temporal and nontemporal information was examined. Pigeons were trained to match short (2-sec) and long (8-sec) sample durations to red and green comparison stimuli, and vertical and horizontal lines to vertical and horizontal comparison stimuli. In Experiment 1, one differential outcome (DO) group received food for correct choices on short-sample trials, whereas another received food for correct choices on long-sample trials. On line-orientation trials, half of each DO group received food for correct responses following vertical samples, whereas the other half received food for correct responses following horizontal samples. Overall retention was greater in the DO groups than in a nondifferential (NDO) group that received either food or no food for correct responses on a random half of all trials. Furthermore, although the NDO group displayed a choose-short bias for temporal samples, both DO groups displayed equivalent biases to select the comparison stimulus associated with food. In Experiment 2, differential outcome expectancies were extinguished off-baseline. Subsequently, in the first nondifferential outcome test session, the. DO groups performed less, accurately than the NDO group. These findings indicate that temporal samples are not retrospectively and analogically coded when they are differentially associated with food and no food. Instead, they are remembered in terms of the corresponding outcome expectancies.     

Factors affecting conditional discrimination learning by pigeons: II. Physical and temporal characteristics of stimuli

Four experiments were performed to determine the stimulus characteristics that favor the development of conditional stimulus control in the single reversal paradigm with pigeon subjects. In Experiment 1, pigeons were trained on a successive discrimination between tone frequencies ranging from 350 to 3500 Hz in a particular houselight context condition (houselight-on or -off). The subjects then were trained on the reversal of the tone discrimination in the alternative context. Subsequent tone-frequency generalization testing in the two contexts indicated that they had failed to gain conditional control over the pigeons’ discriminative performance. Such control was obtained in Experiment 2, in which the two problems were alternated daily for 32 sessions of training. The gradients then peaked at the appropriate S+ value in each context. In Experiment 3, the key colors (blue vs. red) served as contexts while pigeons learned a successive discrimination in which the discriminative cues were houselight-on versus houselight-off conditions. This was followed by a reversal of the discrimination in the alternative key-color context condition. The key colors were effective conditional cues in this situation. In a previous experiment (Thomas, McKelvie, & Mah, 1985), key color had been ineffective as a conditional cue when the discriminative cues were lines superimposed on the colored background. In Experiment 4, key color was effective when the color and lines were presented on a single key as in the earlier experiment, but were sequenced such that the onset of the key color preceded and then overlapped the presentation of the lines. We concluded that conditional discriminations are easiest for pigeons when visual cues are used, but the conditional and discriminative cues must be presented in such a way that they do not combine to form a psychological compound.     

Discrimination of relative numerosity by pigeons

In three experiments, pigeons were trained to discriminate between uniform arrays of two elements that differed in color, form, or size. They were then tested with arrays that contained different proportions of the two elements on these dimensions. In all cases, orderly discrimination gradients reflected these proportions. The discrimination readily transferred to new arrays with similar stimuli, but with different total numbers of elements. In Experiment 4, the pigeons were taught to discriminate between two groups of categorical stimuli: pictures of birds and pictures of flowers. A test with different proportions of each again produced a gradient based on relative numerosity. Experiment 5 demonstrated transfer of stimulus control on the numerosity dimension when pigeons were trained with one set of instances from two categories, and then were tested with new instances from the same categories.     

Some determinants of response summation

Response summation in pigeons was examined in four experiments. In Experiment 1, summation was not found with a compound of two visual stimuli on a television screen after they had individually been used for instrumental conditioning. In this experiment, the training and test trials were separated by an interval during which the television screen was dark. Summation was found in Experiment 2 for which the television screen was permanently white during the interval between trials and in the region that was not occupied by the experimental stimuli. These results were replicated using a within-subject design (Experiment 3) and autoshaping (Experiment 4). Experiment 2 also revealed summation with compounds of auditory and visual stimuli, but not with compounds of two auditory stimuli or two diffuse lights. The results can be explained by a variety of theories of learning, if they take account of generalization between the stimuli.     

Contextual control of pavlovian feature-positive and feature-negative discriminations

Three pigeons were trained with a Pavlovian serial feature-positive (F-P) discrimination task in a light context, in which the houselight was on, and with a Pavlovian serial feature-negative (F-N) discrimination task in a dark context, in which the houselight was off. Three other pigeons were trained with the F-P task in the dark context and the F-N task in the light context. These two contextual conditions were changed randomly trial by trial. The former birds learned the tasks within 60 sessions, by responding exclusively to the target keylight after the feature tone in the light context and by responding exclusively to the target not preceded by the feature in the dark context. Two of the latter birds required separate training of the F-P and the F-N tasks to acquire the discrimination: responding exclusively to the target after the feature in the dark context and responding exclusively to the target not preceded by the feature in the light context. The third bird, however, failed to learn the discrimination even with separate training. These results indicate that the four-term contingency (the context-feature-target-food relationship) controlled the birds’ behavior in the Pavlovian setting. The insertion of a temporal gap between the feature and the target impaired the F-N discrimination, although it had little effect on the F-P discrimination.     

The effect of localizing the stimulus at the response key on generalization along the hue dimension in the pigeon

After training with a variable-interval schedule of positive reinforcement, pigeons were tested for stimulus generalization along the hue dimension. For one group, the stimulus was located on the response key. For a second group, the stimulus was located on a surface adjacent to the response key. The stimulus-on-key group produced the typical steep gradients normally found with hue stimuli; the stimulus-off-key group produced flat gradients. After discrimination training between the presence and absence of the hue stimulus, both groups produced decremental gradients. In a second experiment, naive pigeons were trained to peck a transparent key with the stimulus surface located approximately 3.8 cm behind the key. When tested for generalization, the hue gradients were decremental. The results suggest that location of the stimulus in the line of sight with pecking is a necessary condition for stimulus control by hue after nondifferential training.     

Unraveling sources of stimulus control in a temporal discrimination task

In temporal discriminations tasks, more than one stimulus may function as a time marker. We studied two of them in a matching-to-sample task, the sample keylight and the houselight that signaled the intertrial interval (ITI). One group of pigeons learned a symmetrical matching-to-sample task with two samples (2 s or 18 s of a center keylight) and two comparisons (red and green side keys), whereas another group of pigeons learned an asymmetrical matching-to-sample task with three samples (2 s, 6 s, and 18 s) and two comparisons (red and green). In the asymmetrical task, 6-s and 18-s samples shared the same comparison. In a subsequent retention test, both groups showed a preference for the comparison associated with the longer samples, a result consistent with the hypothesis that pigeons based their choices on the duration elapsed since the offset of the houselight (i.e., sample duration + retention interval). Results from two no-sample tests further corroborated the importance of the ITI illumination as a time marker: When the ITI was illuminated, the proportion of choices correlated positively with the retention interval; when the ITI was darkened, choices fell to random levels. However, the absolute value of choice proportions suggested that the sample stimulus was also a time marker. How multiple stimuli acquire control over behavior and how they combine remains to be worked out.     

Effects of identical context on visual pattern recognition by pigeons

The effects of identical context on pattern recognition by pigeons for outline drawings of faces were investigated by training pigeons to identify (Experiment 1) and categorize (Experiment 2) these stimuli according to the orientation of the mouth—an upright U shape representing a smiling mouth or an inverted U shape representing a sad mouth. These target stimuli were presented alone (Pair 1), with three dots in a triangular orientation to represent a nose and eyes (Pair 2), and with the face pattern surrounded by an oval (Pair 3). In Experiment 1, the pigeons trained with Pair 1 were most accurate, those trained with Pair 2 were less so, and those trained with Pair 3 failed to acquire the discrimination within eighty 100-trial sessions. The same ordering was found in Experiment 2 for pigeons trained on the three pairs simultaneously. The authors suggest that a contrasting finding in humans, the face superiority effect, might be due to a gain in discriminability resulting from recognition of the pattern as a face. An exemplar model of information processing that excludes linguistic coding accounts for the present results.     

Coding of hedonic and nonhedonic samples by pigeons in many-to-one delayed matching

In two experiments, pigeons were trained on many-to-one delayed matching in which samples of food and one hue were each associated with one shape comparison, and samples of no food and a different hue were each associated with a second shape comparison. When later tested with delays between sample and comparison stimuli, pigeons showed nonparallel delay functions, typically found with food and no-food samples (i.e., steeply declining food-sample delay functions, and relatively flat no-food-sample delay functions). Furthermore, the slopes of the hue-sample delay functions were similar to those on the food/no-food-sample trials. In Experiment 2, following many-toone delayed matching, when the hue samples were associated with new comparisons and then food and no-food samples replaced the hues, evidence was found for transfer of training indicative of the common coding of samples associated with the same comparison in original training. The transfer results suggest that the asymmetrical hue-sample functions resulted from the common coding of samples associated with the same comparison.     

“Same/different” symbol use by pigeons

Pigeons learned to respond at one spatial position when a pair of stimuli matched and at a different spatial position when they mismatched. All birds were then transferred to novel stimuli on an orthogonal dimension. For the positive-transfer group, the correct positions for matching and mismatching stimuli remained as they were during training. For the negative-transfer group, the correct positions were reversed. In Experiment 1, the birds were trained with shape stimuli and transferred to hue stimuli. Significant group differences were found, in spite of considerable stimulus-specific learning. In Experiment 2, when the same birds (counterbalanced for Experiment 1 transfer group) were transferred to steady-intermittent stimuli, even larger group differences were found. The data indicate that pigeons have some capacity for representing the concepts “same” and “different” with arbitrary stimuli (i.e., symbols). The data further suggest that distinctions that have been made between matching/oddity transfer tasks and same/different tasks may be procedural rather than conceptual.     

Common coding in pigeons: Partial versus total reversals of one-to-many conditional discriminations

Common coding in pigeons was examined using a delayed conditional discrimination in which each sample stimulus was associated with two different comparison stimuli (one-to-many mapping). In Experiment 1, pigeons matched circle and dot samples to red and green hues and vertical and horizontal line orientations. In Experiment 2, the samples were red and green and the comparisons were vertical and horizontal spatial positions (up vs. down and left vs. right). Following acquisition to high levels of accuracy in each experiment, the associations between the samples and either both sets or only one set of comparisons were reversed. Pigeons learned the total reversals faster than the partial reversals. These results suggest that when different comparisons are associated with a common sample, they may become functionally equivalent.     

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.