Andrea M. Friedrich

Discriminative Stimuli That Follow a Delay Have Added Value for Pigeons

Clement, Feltus, Kaiser, and Zentall (2000) reported that pigeons prefer discriminative stimuli that require greater effort (more pecks) to obtain over those that require less effort. In the present experiment, we examined two variables associated with this phenomenon. First, we asked whether delay of reinforcement, presumably a relatively aversive event similar to effort, would produce similar effects. Second, we asked whether the stimulus preference produced by a prior relatively aversive event depends on its anticipation. Anticipation of delay was accomplished by signaling its occurrence. Results indicated that delays can produce preferences similar to those produced by increased effort, but only if the delays are signaled.

Discriminative stimuli that follow the absence of reinforcement are preferred by pigeons over those that follow reinforcement.

Clement, Feltus, Kaiser, and Zentall (2000) found that when pigeons have to work to obtain a discriminative stimulus that is followed by reinforcement, they prefer a discriminative stimulus that requires greater effort over one that requires less effort. The authors suggested that such a preference results from the greater change in hedonic value that occurs between the more aversive event and the onset of the stimulus that signals reinforcement, a contrast effect. It was hypothesized that any stimulus that follows a relatively more aversive event would be preferred over a stimulus that follows a relatively less aversive event. In the present experiment, the authors tested the counterintuitive prediction of that theory, that pigeons should prefer a discriminative stimulus that follows the absence of reinforcement over a discriminative stimulus that follows reinforcement. Results supported the theory.

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.

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.

Required pecking alters judgments of the passage of time by pigeons

There is evidence that how humans perceive time is affected by the activity in which they are engaged when they are judging time. In humans, typically, the more demanding the task, the faster time seems to pass. We asked whether a similar effect could be found in pigeons. Pigeons were trained to discriminate between a short-(2-sec) and a long-(10-sec) duration stimulus. Depending on the color of the stimulus (white or blue), the pigeons were required to peck (at least once per second or the trial was aborted) or to refrain from pecking (pecks aborted the trial). Once these tasks had been acquired to a high degree, probe trials involving white and blue stimuli were presented at durations between 2 and 10 sec. On trials in which the pigeons were required to peck, the point of subjective equality (i.e., the point at which pigeons are equally likely to choose the stimulus associated with long stimuli as the stimulus associated with short stimuli) was almost 1 sec longer than on trials in which the pigeons were required to refrain from pecking. In other words, on trials that required pecking, more time passed before the pigeons indicated that the probe duration was at the subjective midpoint between 2 and 10 sec than on trials that did not require pecking. This result suggests that like humans, the pigeons underestimated the passage of time when they were active or when attention to time-related cues had to be shared with attention to satisfying the response rate requirement.

Functional equivalence in pigeons involving a four-member class

Research suggests that animals are capable of forming functional equivalence relations or stimulus classes of the kind usually demonstrated by humans (e.g., the class defined by an object and the word for that object). In pigeons, such functional equivalences are typically established using many-to-one matching-to-sample in which two samples are associated with one comparison stimulus and two different samples are associated with the other. Evidence for the establishment of functional equivalences between samples associated with the same comparison comes from transfer tests. In Experiment 1, we found that pigeons can form a single class consisting of four members (many-to-one matching) when the alternative class has only one member (one-to-one matching). In Experiment 2, we ruled out the possibility that the pigeons acquired the hybrid one-to-one/many-to-one task by developing a single-code/default coding strategy as earlier research suggested that it might. Thus, pigeons can develop a functional class consisting of as many as four members, with the alternative class consisting of a single member.

A relational differential outcomes effect: pigeons can classify outcomes as “good” and “better”

In a conditional discrimination each of two sample stimuli indicates which of two comparison stimuli is correct. When correct choice following each conditional stimulus is followed by a different outcome (one kind of food following one, a different kind of food following the other) it often facilitates acquisition and improves memory. In transfer designs, in which two different conditional discriminations are followed by the same two differential outcomes, outcome expectation can be shown to be sufficient for comparison choice. That is, the samples from one conditional discrimination are matched to comparisons from the other conditional discrimination based on the common outcomes alone. In the present study we asked if for pigeons the relative value of the differential outcomes (higher versus lower value) can serve as the basis for comparison choice, independent of other characteristics of the outcomes and of differential sample responding. That is, would different outcomes that could be described as “good” and “better” form two stimulus classes. For one conditional discrimination, the differential outcomes involved differential probability of reinforcement for choice of the correct comparison stimulus (0.80 vs. 0.20 for correct choice of the two comparisons, respectively). For the other conditional discrimination, the differential outcomes involved differential responding to the two comparison stimuli (5 pecks vs. 20 pecks to the correct comparisons, respectively). On test trials, when conditional stimuli from the two conditional discriminations were interchanged and the relative value of the differential outcomes could serve as the only basis for comparison choice, we found positive transfer. The results indicate that relational attributes of outcomes can serve as effective cues for comparison choice.