Judgement bias in pigs is independent of performance in a spatial holeboard task and conditional discrimination learning

Biases in judgement of ambiguous stimuli, as measured in a judgement bias task, have been proposed as a measure of the valence of affective states in animals. We recently suggested a list of criteria for behavioural tests of emotion, one of them stating that responses on the task used to assess emotionality should not be confounded by, among others, differences in learning capacity, i.e. must not simply reflect the cognitive capacity of an animal. We performed three independent studies in which pigs acquired a spatial holeboard task, a free choice maze which simultaneously assesses working memory and reference memory. Next, pigs learned a conditional discrimination between auditory stimuli predicting a large or small reward, a prerequisite for assessment of judgement bias. Once pigs had acquired the conditional discrimination task, optimistic responses to previously unheard ambiguous stimuli were measured in the judgement bias task as choices indicating expectation of the large reward. We found that optimism in the judgement bias task was independent of all three measures of learning and memory indicating that the performance is not dependent on the pig’s cognitive abilities. These results support the use of biases in judgement as proxy indicators of emotional valence in animals.     

Errorless learning of a conditional temporal discrimination

In the present study we extended errorless learning to a conditional temporal discrimination. Pigeons' responses to a left-red key after a 2-s sample and to a right-green key after a 10-s sample were reinforced. There were two groups: One learned the discrimination through trial and error and the other through an errorless learning procedure. Then, both groups were presented with three types of tests. First, they were exposed to intermediate durations between 2 s and 10 s, and given a choice between both keys (stimulus generalization test). Second, a delay from 1 s to 16 s was included between the offset of the sample and the onset of the choice keys (delay test). Finally, pigeons learned a new discrimination in which the stimuli were switched (reversal test). Results showed that pigeons from the Errorless group made significantly fewer errors than those in the Trial-and-Error group. Both groups performed similarly during the stimulus generalization test and the reversal test, but results of the delay test suggested that, on long stimulus trials, responding in the errorless training group was less disrupted by delays.     

Factors affecting conditional discrimination learning by pigeons

In Experiment 1 (within subjects) and Experiment 2 (between subjects) it was shown that the sequential training of pigeons on a color discrimination and then on its reversal, each in a different floor-tilt/texture context, failed to produce conditional control of discriminative performance by those contexts. Daily alternation between the two problems (with correlated contexts) was successful, however. In each of these experiments conditional control was better reflected in generalization test performance in extinction than during sessions of training with reinforcement.     

A role for stimulus generalization in conditional discrimination learning

In each of three experiments on discrimination learning by rats, whether or not a 10-sec target stimulus was followed by food was determined by the nature of a 2-min background stimulus that accompanied it. A conditional discrimination was employed in Experiment 1 such that background A indicated food would follow one target but not the other, whereas this relationship between the targets and food was reversed in the presence of background B. Experiment 2 employed two feature-positive discriminations. Subsequent test trials revealed that the background for one discrimination was able to enhance responding during the target for the other discrimination. Experiment 3 employed a feature-positive and a feature-negative discrimination prior to test trials in which each target was presented separately during a compound of both background stimuli. The compound enhanced responding to the target from the feature-positive discrimination and reduced it to the target from the feature-negative discrimination. We suggest that to accommodate all these findings, the best explanation is provided by a configural model of Pavlovian conditioning.     

Observational learning of a conditional hue discrimination in pigeons

Three experiments examined a relationship between cooperation and observational learning in pigeons using procedures similar to Skinner (1962). In Experiment 1, dyads cooperated by searching and pecking nearly simultaneously on the correct pair of adjacent keys of a 2 × 2 matrix. The dyads learned to search for the correct keys in a coordinated fashion, but only if they were permitted to watch one another's performance. Experiment 2 disconfirmed the hypothesis that the coordinated performance of cooperating pigeons reflects an unlearned response tendency to peck at locations close to where the other bird is pecking. Experiment 3 demonstrated that prior cooperation training involving an observer and demonstrator pigeon facilitated subsequent observational learning of a conditional hue discrimination. Cooperation training appeared to facilitate observational learning by establishing the demonstrator's peck response as an instructional stimulus which indicated the reward significance of the discriminative stimuli.     

Fading procedures and conditional discrimination in children

A discrimination reversal task followed by a conditional discrimination problem was administered to children (age range 36 to 107 months). A fading procedure was used during the discrimination reversal training of some subjects and other subjects were trained by a traditional procedure. More subjects trained by the fading procedure performed without errors during training and more subjects in the traditional group solved the conditional discrimination problem.     

Stimulus control during conditional discrimination

Pigeons were used to assess stimulus control during the development of a conditional discrimination. The training consisted of three stages. In Stage 1, key pecks were reinforced in the presence of a white line tilted 40 degrees to the right of vertical on a green background and non-reinforced when the same line appeared on a red background. In Stage 2, key pecks were reinforced when a white vertical line appeared on a red background and were non-reinforced in the presence of a 40 degrees slanted line on a red background. In Stage 3, key pecks were reinforced in the presence of the green background regardless of the line tilt, but were differentially reinforced in the presence of the red background (as in Stage 2). Generalization tests were conducted after each stage of training and consisted of five white lines on backgrounds that were green, red, or dark. The effects of the differential reinforcement contingencies on control by line orientation were restricted to the condition in which the red light appeared and resulted in behavioral control that could be characterized as: if red, pay closer attention to line tilt than if not red.     

Naming in conditional discrimination and stimulus equivalence.

Using a matching-to-sample procedure, McIntire, Cleary, and Thompson (1987) taught monkeys the conditional relations A1-R1-A1-R1, A2-R2-A2-R2, A1-R1-B1-R1, A2-R2-B2-R2, B1-R1-C1-R1, and B2-R2-C2-R2, where the first and third terms in each relation refer to the sample and comparison stimuli, respectively, and the second and last terms refer to the emission of a distinctive pattern of responding. The subjects were then tested for the emergent relations A-C, C-A, B-A, C-B, and B-B, with the differential response produced by a given stimulus during training also emitted on test trials (e.g., A1-R1-C1-R1). The performances of both subjects were as accurate on the tested relations as they had been on the trained relations. The new relations were characterized as demonstrations of stimulus equivalence. However, the conditional discrimination literature shows that such training procedures generate control of comparison selection by the differential response patterns. Therefore, no emergent relations were demonstrated because all of the trained response-stimulus relations were preserved on test trials. This paper suggests that these procedures do not provide an appropriate analogy for the kind of emergent stimulus-stimulus relations exhibited by human subjects in equivalence studies and outlines a paradigm for assessing the relative influence of stimulus-stimulus and response-stimulus relations.     

Attention and generalization during a conditional discrimination

A conditional discrimination was established and analyzed, using four pigeons. The discrimination was among four compound stimuli projected on the response key—a white circle or triangle on a red or green background—during two conditions of illumination in the chamber, no illumination or flashing illumination. The two lighting conditions indicated whether the stimuli on the key containing triangles or those containing red would be the occasion for reinforcement. After the discrimination formed, generalization to intermediate and extreme values of the conditional stimulus and the attention of the birds to separate aspects of the stimulus on the key under each of the conditional stimuli were studied. All subjects generalized across values of the conditional stimulus, the lighting of the chamber. But subjects differed in the manner in which they treated the compound stimuli: two tended to attend to one or the other aspect of the stimulus on the key depending on the conditional stimulus, and two offered no evidence of such selective attention. Thus, the differential control of responding by the conditional stimuli cannot be attributed to a shift in attention between the figure and ground aspects of the compound stimuli.     

Successive olfactory reversal learning in honeybees

Honeybees Apis mellifera can associate an originally neutral odor with a reinforcement of sucrose solution. Forward pairings of odor and reinforcement enable the odor to release the proboscis extension reflex in consecutive tests. Bees can also be conditioned differentially: They learn to respond to a reinforced odor and not to a nonreinforced one. They can also learn to reverse their choice. Here we ask whether honeybees can learn successive olfactory differential conditioning tasks involving different overlapping pairs of odors. The conditioning schedules were established in order to train the animals with 3, 2, 1, or 0 reversals previous to a last differential conditioning phase in which two additional reversals were present. We studied whether or not successive reversal learning is possible and whether or not learning olfactory discrimination reversals affects the solving of subsequent discrimination reversals. Therefore we compared the responses of bees that had experienced reversals with those of bees that had not experienced such reversals when both are confronted with a new reversal situation. In experiment 1 we showed that bees that had experienced three previous reversals were better in solving the final reversal task than bees with no previous reversal experience. In experiment 2, we showed that one reversal learning is enough for bees to perform better in the final reversal task. The successive different reversals trained in our experiments resemble the natural foraging situation in which a honeybee forager has to switch successively from an initial floral species to different ones. The fact that experiencing such changes seems to improve a bee's performance in dealing with further new exploited food sources has therefore an adaptive impact for the individual and for the colony as a whole.     

Improving conditional discrimination learning and memory in five-year-old children: Differential outcomes effect using different types of reinforcement

Previous studies have demonstrated that discriminative learning is facilitated when a particular outcome is associated with each relation to be learned. When this training procedure is applied (the differential outcomes procedure; DOP), learning is faster and better than when the typical common outcomes procedure or nondifferential outcomes (NDO) is used. Our primary purpose in the two experiments reported here was to assess the potential advantage of DOP in 5-year-old children using three different strategies of reinforcement in which (a) children received a reinforcer following a correct choice (“ + ”), (b) children lost a reinforcer following an incorrect choice (“ ? ”), or (c) children received a reinforcer following a correct choice and lost one following an incorrect choice (“ + / ? ”). In Experiment 1, we evaluated the effects of the presence of DOP and different types of reinforcement on learning and memory of a symbolic delayed matching-to-sample task using secondary and primary reinforcers. Experiment 2 was similar to the previous one except that only primary reinforcers were used. The results from these experiments indicated that, in general, children learned the task faster and showed higher performance and persistence of learning whenever differential outcomes were arranged independent of whether it was differential gain, loss, or combinations. A novel finding was that they performed the task better when they lost a reinforcer following an incorrect choice (type of training “ ? ”) in both experiments. A further novel finding was that the advantage of the DOP over the nondifferential outcomes training increased in a retention test.     

Generalization and response mediation of a conditional discrimination

Fifteen pigeons were given conditional discrimination training in which a colored sample stimulus determined which of two line comparison stimuli (vertical and horizontal) was correct. As part of the conditional discrimination procedure, birds were required to make an "observing response" to the sample stimulus presented on a wide key. The location on this key of the required observing response for the two sample stimuli differed by 0, 3, or 6 in. (0, 7.6, or 15.2 cm) for three groups of birds. Accuracy of conditional discrimination performance was directly related to the amount of separation. In subsequent generalization tests with novel sample stimuli, both observing-response location and comparison responding changed within the same region of the wavelength continuum from that appropriate for one of the training samples to that appropriate for the other. A maintained generalization test (continued reinforcement for training stimuli) revealed this relation more strongly. A test in which observing-response location was the only sample stimulus of a conditional discrimination revealed stimulus control by this observing response, supporting a response mediation interpretation of the data.     

Successive positive contrast in one-way avoidance learning

The main finding of these experiments was a positive contrast effect in one-way avoidance learning. Experiment 1 showed that increasing safety time during one-way avoidance training led to improved performance, surpassing that of a control group that had received the high reward (safe time) from the beginning of training. Experiment 2 showed that a similar positive contrast effect occurred when the time spent in the danger compartment before the onset of the warning signal was shortened. These results suggest that time spent in a safe context acts as a reinforcer of the avoidance response; however, its incentive value depends not only on its duration, but also on the length of the time spent in the danger compartment before the onset of the signal. Overall, results also suggest that the avoidance response is a mixture of flight (motivated by fear) and approach (to a safe place) behaviour. The specific weight of the flight or approach component may be a function of the time and the amount of activation of each emotional state (fear or relief) due to opponent homeostatic compensatory processes that occur in the danger and safe compartments during one-way avoidance learning.     

Controlling relations in conditional discrimination and matching by exclusion.

Normally capable adults learned two-choice identity matching of three-digit numerals and arbitrary matching of physically dissimilar nonsense syllables. The stimuli were displayed on a computer terminal, and responses consisted of typing on the terminal's keyboard. In Experiment 1, every trial displayed a sample numeral, a comparison numeral, and three equal signs (= = =). The comparison stimulus was to be selected if it was identical with the sample; otherwise the equal sign was to be selected. This "single comparison" method was then used to show that arbitrary matching could be based upon either sample-S+ or sample-S- relations. In Experiment 2, a series of probe trials displayed a novel sample, a comparison stimulus from the arbitrary matching baseline, and = = =. Subjects typically selected = = =; they apparently were excluding the baseline comparison stimulus. Experiments 3 through 5 investigated which variables in training would lead to the selection of baseline comparison stimuli in response to novel samples. Behavior was usually unchanged when baseline training included relating comparison stimuli to as many as four different samples. Punishment contingencies were effective, but performance did not generalize unless those contingencies were applied in relation to more than one baseline comparison stimulus.