Lou M. Sherburne

Common Coding in Pigeons Assessed Through Partial Versus Total Reversals of Many-to-One Conditional and Simple Discriminations

Common coding of stimuli was examined in pigeons in 3 experiments involving many-to-one mapping of lines and hues onto common events. The common events were shapes in Experiment 1 (involving delayed symbolic matching-to-sample) and food-no-food outcomes in Experiments 2 and 3 (involving simple discriminations). In Phase 2 of Experiments 1 and 2, the hue discriminations were reversed for Group Hue, the line discriminations were reversed for Group Line, and both discriminations were reversed for Group Hue-Line. Line reversals were learned faster by Group Hue-Line than by Group Line, but differences in reversal learning were not found with hues. In Experiment 3, both hue and line discriminations were repeatedly reversed until reversal transfer was stable. Relative to this baseline, significantly poorer performance was found on a line-only reversal. Overall, the results suggest that when a hue and a line are associated with a common event, both may be centrally represented as the hue.

Transfer of value from S+ to S− in a simultaneous discrimination

Value transfer theory has been proposed to account for transitive inference effects (L. V. Fersen, C. D. L. Wynne, J. D. Delius, & J. E. R. Staddon, 1991), in which following training on 4 simultaneous discriminations (A+B-, B+C-, C+D-, D+E-) pigeons show a preference for B over D. According to this theory, some of the value of reinforcement acquired by each S+ transfers to the S-. In the transitive inference experiment, C (associated with both reward and nonreward) can transfer less value to D than A (associated only with reward) can transfer to B. Support for value transfer theory was demonstrated in 2 experiments in which an S- presented in the context of a stimulus to which responses were always reinforced (S+) was preferred over an S- presented in the context of a stimulus to which responses were sometimes reinforced (S +/-).

TIMING IN PIGEONS : THE CHOOSE-SHORT EFFECT MAY RESULT FROM PIGEONS' CONFUSION BETWEEN DELAY AND INTERTRIAL INTERVALS

In conditional discriminations, when samples differ only in duration, pigeons typically show a choose-short effect (i.e., higher matching accuracy on short-duration-sample than on long-durationsample trials with increasing delay between sample and comparison stimuli). That this effect depends on the similarity of retention interval (RI) and intertrial interval (ITI) houselight illumination conditions has been taken as evidence that pigeons judge duration relative to a temporal background. In the present experiment, pigeons trained with duration samples and with the ITI either illuminated or not showed a choose-short bias only when the RI illumination on test trials was the same as the ITI illumination had been in training. The results support the hypothesis that the choose-short effect results from the pigeons’ confusion between the ITI and the RI.

Development of Excitatory Backward Associations during the Establishment of Forward Associations in a Delayed Conditional Discrimination by Pigeons

The development of excitatory backward associations in pigeons was demonstrated in three experiments involving conditional discriminations with differential outcomes. In Phase 1 of all three experiments, correct comparison choices following one sample were followed by food, whereas correct comparison choices following the other sample were followed by presentation of an empty feeder. In Phase 2, the food and no-food events that served as outcomes in Phase 1 replaced the samples. When the associations tested in Phase 2 were consistent with the comparison-outcome associations developed in Phase 1, transfer performance was significantly better than when the Phase 2 associations were inconsistent with the Phase 1 associations. In Experiment 1, an identity matching-to-sample task was used with red and green samples and red and green comparisons. In Experiment 2, a symbolic matching task was used with shape samples and hue comparisons, and it was shown that the backward associations formed were between the trial outcome (food or no food) and the correct comparison. In Experiment 3, it was determined that the transfer effects observed in these experiments did not depend on either the similarity of behavior directed toward the samples in the training and test phases, or the similarity of food and no-foodexpectancies generated by the samples in Phase 1 to food and no-foodevents presented as samples in Phase 2.

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.

Coding of feature and no-feature events by pigeons performing a delayed conditional discrimination

Pigeons’ performance of a delayed conditional discrimination with presence versus absence of conditional (sample) stimuli was examined in two experiments. The pigeons showed steeper retention functions with feature (i.e., presence) samples (either food or yellow) than with no-feature (i.e., absence) samples (either no food or no yellow). These results suggest that pigeons code features and respond only by default to test stimuli (comparisons) associated with no features. In contrast, the overall superiority of performance on no-feature-sample trials compared with feature-sample trials in both the food/no-food- and yellow/no-yellow-sample tasks was reversed at a 0-sec delay in the food/no-food-sample group, but not in the yellow/non-yellow-sample group. This difference in results with hedonic versus nonhedonic samples suggests that the crossover in delay performance on food/no-food-sample trials is produced by the formation of backward associations between the food-associated comparison stimulus and the food sample.

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.

Common coding by pigeons in a many-to-one delayed matching task as evidenced by facilitation and interference effects

Pigeons were first trained on many-to-one delayed matching in which pairs of hue and line-orientation samples were associated with individual comparison stimuli. They were then trained to match two of the original samples (either hues or line orientations) to new comparisons, after which 2-sec delays were inserted between the samples and comparisons. In testing, the remaining samples were presented as interpolated stimuli during the delays. When the interpolated stimulus had been associated with the same comparison as the sample in many-to-one matehing, performance was significantly more accurate than when it had been associated with a different comparison. This finding adds to the evidence that samples sharing common comparison associations are commonly coded.

Role of differential sample responding in the differential outcomes effect involving delayed matching by pigeons.

The role of differential sample responding in the differential outcomes effect was examined. In Experiment 1, we trained pigeons on a one-to-many matching task with differential sample responding required. Differential outcomes were associated with samples and comparisons, with comparisons only, or with neither samples nor comparisons. Slopes of delay functions for trials with pecked versus nonpecked samples suggested use of a single-code-default strategy in the nondifferential-outcomes group but not in the differential-outcomes groups. In Experiment 2, differential sample responding and differential outcomes were manipulated independently. Again, there were significant differences in the relative slopes of the delay functions. Results suggest that differential outcomes exert their effect independently of differential sample responding.

Perceptual learning in pigeons: Decreased ability to Discriminate samples mapped onto the same comparison in many-to-one matching

Humans often treat two stimuli that are associated with a common response as similar in other contexts. They do so presumably because those stimuli become conceptually or perceptually more similar to each other (perceptual learning). An analogous phenomenon may occur in pigeons when they are trained with a matching-to-sample procedure in which more than one sample is mapped onto the same comparison. In the present research, pigeons were trained to select one comparison following either of two samples (S1 or S2) and to select the other comparison following either of two different samples (S3 or S4). When the samples were then presented as positive and negative stimuli in a simple successive discrimination, samples that had been associated with the same comparison during original training (e.g., S1 vs. S2) were more difficult to discriminate than were samples that had been associated with different comparisons (e.g., S1 vs. S3). Thus, it appears that perceptual learning occurs in pigeons as well.