Preferences among stimulus matches in the pigeon

Three pigeons were trained to peck two to five illuminated response keys. A peck to any of the keys changed the stimulus on the key. When all keys showed the same stimulus (i.e., a stimulus match), an additional key was illuminated with white light. A peck on this key produced three-second access to grain, a three-second intertrial interval, and the next trial. For most sessions, no particular stimulus match was required. Although there were often several stimuli available, each bird preferred a particular stimulus match. With up to 12 stimuli available, birds matched a particular stimulus 60% to 100% of the time.     

Stimulus control of the pigeon's ability to peck a moving target.

Two pigeons were trained to peck whichever of eight keys displayed a white field (SD). The other seven keys displayed a white "X" on a black background (S delta). Each peck to SD produced three-second access to grain, a three-second intertrial interval (ITI), and the next trial. Pecks to S delta produced a three-second timeout (TO) and the same trial. During later sessions the key displaying SD changed every t seconds (t = 3, 2, 1, .5, and .25 sec), requiring the birds to track the position of the SD. Pecks on a ninth key increased t. Several sessions employed novel stimuli to ascertain the controlling stimulus dimensions. Both birds made few errors acquiring the original discrimination. During the tracking sessions, both birds made few errors when t = .5 sec. Only one reliably lengthened t. Data from sessions with novel stimuli indicate that color and form were important aspects of SD and S delta respectively; movement contributed to the final performance.     

Delayed signal detection, differential reinforcement, and short-term memory in the pigeon.

In two discrete-trial delayed-detection experiments, six pigeons were trained on dependent concurrent variable-interval schedules. Pecking a red side key was reinforced when the brighter of two white lights (S1) had been presented on the center key, and pecking a green side key was reinforced when the duller of two white lights (S2) had been presented on the center key. Incorrect responses were red side-key pecks following S2 presentations and green side-key pecks following S1 presentations; these resulted in three-second blackouts. In Experiment 1, the time between presentation of S1 or S2 on the center key and the onset of the red and green side keys was varied nonsystematically from 0.06 seconds to 19.69 seconds across experimental conditions. Stimulus discriminability decreased as the stimulus-choice delay increased. A rectangular-hyperbolic function better described this decrease in discriminability over time than did a negative-exponential function. In Experiment 2, at each of three stimulus-choice delays (0.06, 3.85, and 10.36 seconds), relative reinforcer frequency for correct responses to the red and green side keys was varied by changing the values of the dependent concurrent variable-interval schedules. The sensitivity of choice to relative reinforcer frequency was independent of the decrease in stimulus discriminability with increasing stimulus-choice delay.     

Memory for two stimulus-response items in pigeons

Six pigeons served in a discrete-trial experiment on short-term memory. Combinations of three key positions and two ordinal positions, yielding six possible sequences of stimulus-response pairs, were used as lists of items. A retention interval separated list presentation from the test phase in which two (for Group 1) or three (for Group 2) keys were illuminated with either red or green light. A reinforcer was delivered if a subject pecked the key of the first item on a red trial and the key of the second item on a green trial. When the retention interval was lengthened from one to five or nine seconds, a systematic loss of stimulus control resulted. Lengthening the interval between items from one to eight seconds had a much smaller effect for the birds in Group 1, whereas a systematic loss of stimulus control was found in red trials for the birds in Group 2. The functional relations between choice accuracy and delay provided an empirical basis for analysis of what relations among temporal events can become discriminative stimuli.     

Effect of delay-interval stimuli on delayed symbolic matching to sample in the pigeon

In Experiment 1, food-deprived pigeons received delayed symbolic matching to sample training in a darkened Skinner box. Trials began with the illumination of the grain feeder lamp (no food sample), or illumination of this lamp, accompanied by the raising of the feeder tray (food sample). After a delay of a few seconds, the two side response keys were illuminated, one with red and one with green light, with positions counterbalanced over trials. Pecking the red (green) comparison produced grain reinforcement if the trial had started with food (no food); pecking red after a no-food sample or green after a food sample was not reinforced. Once matching performance was stable, four stimuli were presented during the delay interval, and their effects on matching accuracy were evaluated. Both illumination of the houselight and the center key with white geometric forms decreased matching accuracy, whereas presentation of a tone and vibration of the test chamber did not. In Experiment 2, pecking the red center key was reinforced with food according to a variable interval schedule. The effects of occasional brief presentations of the four stimuli used in the first experiment on ongoing pecking were assessed. The houselight and form disturbed key pecking, but the tone and vibration did not. Thus, stimuli that interfered with delayed matching also interfered with simple operant behavior. Implications of these results for theories of remembering are discussed.     

Reproduction memory of two-event sequences in pigeons

Six pigeons were trained to reproduce two-event sequences in an experiment that employed a discrete-trial procedure that required subjects to peck one of four possible sample sequences (left-left, left-right, right-right, right-left) signaled on a given trial by the successive illumination of response keys. Following a retention interval (0.1 to 30 seconds), a reinforcer was delivered if a subject reproduced the prior sample sequence during a test condition in which both left and right keys were illuminated. The pigeons readily reproduced the orders in which they had just seen and pecked two illuminated keys. Reproduction accuracy declined as the retention interval was increased. Homogeneous sequences (left-left, right-right) were reproduced with greater accuracy than heterogeneous sequences.     

The emergence of symmetry in a conditional discrimination task using different responses as propioceptive samples in pigeons

In Experiment 1, 10 pigeons were exposed to a successive symbolic matching-to-sample procedure in which the sample was generated by the pigeons' own behavior. Each trial began with both response keys illuminated white, one being the "correct" key and the other the "incorrect" key. The pigeons had no way of discriminating which key was correct and which incorrect, since these roles were assigned on a random basis with the same probability of 0.5 for each key. A fixed ratio of five responses was required on the correct key. However, each time the pigeon pecked the incorrect key, the correct key response counter reset. Five consecutive pecks on the correct key was the only way to end this component, and switch off both key lights. Two seconds later, these same keys were illuminated again, one green and the other red (comparison stimuli). Now, if the correct white key had been on the left, a peck at one color produced food, and if the correct white key had been on the right, a peck at the other color produced food. When the pigeons had learned this discrimination, they were exposed to several symmetry tests (simultaneous presentations of both keys illuminated the same color-i.e., both red or both green), in order to interchange the sample with the comparison stimuli. In Experiment 2, the importance of requiring discrimination between the samples and between the comparisons was analyzed. In Experiment 3, we compared the results of Experiment 1 with a slightly different experiment, which resulted in discrimination of key position, an exteroceptive stimulus. The results showed that symmetry emerged only when different responses were used as samples.     

Free-operant forgetting: Delayed stimulus control of multiple-schedule performance

Pigeons' responses were reinforced in two components of several multiple variable-interval variable-interval schedules of food reinforcement. In one component, the key was illuminated green for 15 seconds and white for 45 seconds. In the other component, the key was illuminated red for 15 seconds and white for 45 seconds. Values for the exponent of the power functions relating response ratios to reinforcement ratios were higher in the presence of the discriminative stimuli (green or red) than in the presence of white. Sensitivity of response ratios to changes in reinforcement ratios provided an index of the extent to which responding was under delayed stimulus control by prior discriminative stimuli.     

Independence of stimulus discriminability from absolute rate of reinforcement in a signal-detection procedure.

Three experiments are reported in which two pigeons were trained to detect differences in stimulus duration under varying levels of absolute rate of reinforcement. Two red stimuli, differing in duration, were arranged probabilistically on the center key of a three-key chamber. On completion of the center-key duration, the center keylight was extinguished and the two side keys were illuminated white. Correct responses were left-key pecks following the shorter duration and right-key pecks following the longer duration. In Experiment 1, relative rate of reinforcement for correct responses was held constant and absolute rate of reinforcement was varied in seven conditions from continuous reinforcement to a variable-interval 90-second schedule. In Experiment 2, relative rate of reinforcement was manipulated across three different absolute rates of reinforcement (continuous reinforcement, variable-interval 15-second, and variable-interval 45-second). Stimulus discriminability was unaffected by changes in absolute or relative rates of reinforcement. Experiment 3 showed that discriminability was also unaffected by arranging the same consequences (three-second blackout) for unreinforced correct responses and errors.     

Application of Bower's one-element model to paired-associate learning by pigeons

Bower's (1961) all-or-none model of human paired-associate learning was applied to individual data supplied by three pigeons. When the center one of three keys was illuminated with red light or with three white dots in a vertical array on a black ground, pecking on the left key was reinforced. When the center key was lighted green or with a horizontal array of three white dots on a black ground, pecking on the right key was reinforced. The left and right keys were illuminated with white light. The task was considered to be analogous to learning a paired-associate list of four pairs involving four stimulus items and two response items. The model was evaluated by comparing the following model predictions with values obtained from each animal: trials-to-criterion, standard deviation of trials-to-criterion, standard deviation of errors-to-criterion, mean error runs, mean error runs of lengths one to four, and autocorrelations of errors of lags one to three. Most of the predictions based upon the model were in close agreement with the obtained data.     

Short-term remembering of discriminative stimuli in pigeons.

Pigeons learned to peck the left or right of two white keys depending on whether a red or a green stimulus was displayed on a third key. The opportunity to peck the white keys was then dealyed for zero to six seconds after the red or green (to-be-remembered) stimulus. On half the trials, the feeder operated during the delay to interrupt behavior that might mediate discriminated responding. No events were scheduled on the remaining trials. In a later condition, the pigeons had the opportunity to peck the white keys during the delay. In general, accuracy decreased as delay increased in all conditions, but performance was least accurate following feeder operations and most accurate when pecking was allowed during the delay. The procedures may be analogous to varying the opportunity for rehearsal in studies of human short-term memory.     

Discriminative stimulus control and the effects of concurrent operants.

Discriminative-stimulus-control functions were investigated in a concurrent operant context. Variable-interval reinforcement schedules were arranged for pigeons on two response keys. One key, illuminated with a white vertical line on green background (position irrelevant), was programmed with a given schedule value across groups. For different groups of pigeons, the alternative key, illuminated with green alone, was programmed with twice, the same, or half the reinforcement frequency of the other key. Stimulus-control gradients were collected from both keys as line orientation was varied. On the green-plus-line alternative, flattest gradients were observed when twice the reinforcement frequency was concurrently programmed and the steepest were observed when equal values were concurrently programmed. Also examined were the effects of a programmed changeover delay, important in maintaining the independence of concurrent operants. The changeover delay was found to have relatively minor effects upon stimulus control, despite its typical and marked effects upon steady-state responding.     

Discrimination training facilitates pigeons' performance on one-trial-per-day delayed matching of key location

Six pigeons were tested on a one-trial-per-day variant of delayed matching of key location. In one condition, a trial began with the illumination of a pair of quasi-randomly selected pecking keys in a large 10-key test box. Pigeons' pecks to one key (the sample) were reinforced with 8-second access to grain on a variable-interval 30-second schedule, whereas pecks to the other key (the distractor) had no scheduled consequences. In the second condition, the nonreinforced distractor was not presented. In both conditions, subjects were removed from the apparatus after 15 minutes and placed in a holding cage. Subjects were subsequently replaced in the box after a delay (retention interval) of 30 seconds and were reexposed to the illuminated sample and distractor keys for 1 minute. If a pigeon made more pecks to the sample during this interval, the distractor was extinguished and subsequent pecks to the sample were reinforced on the previous schedule for an additional 15 minutes. If, however, a pigeon made more pecks to the distractor, both keys were extinguished and the subject was returned to its home cage. For all subjects, matching-to-sample accuracy was higher in the first condition. In a second experiment, the retention interval was increased to 5, 15, and 30 minutes, and then to 1, 2, 4, 8, 12, and 24 hours. Most subjects remembered the correct key location for up to 4 hours, and in one case, up to 24 hours, demonstrating a spatial-memory proficiency far better than previously reported in this species on delayed matching tasks. The results are discussed in terms of the commonly held distinction between working and reference memory.     

Stimulus control of responding during a fixed-interval reinforcement schedule

During training sessions, pecks by pigeons on a response key illuminated by a vertical line of white light resulted in reinforcement and an ensuing blackout according to a fixed-interval schedule. Training sessions were followed by dimensional stimulus control test sessions during which the orientation of the line present throughout the fixed interval was varied. Inverted U-shaped (excitatory) gradients of responding, with maximum responding occurring in the presence of the vertical line, were observed during the terminal part of the fixed interval. U-shaped (inhibitory) gradients of responding, with minimum responding occurring in the presence of the vertical line, were observed during the early part of the fixed interval when the preceding interval had terminated with reinforcement and blackout but not when the preceding interval had terminated with blackout only. These results suggest that the dimensional control by the stimulus present throughout the fixed interval is of a conditional variety. Whether the fixed-interval stimulus exerts inhibitory or excitatory dimensional control depends upon the presence and absence, respectively, of stimuli associated with reinforcement.     

Two-key concurrent responding: response-reinforcement dependencies and blackouts

Two-key concurrent responding was maintained for three pigeons by a single variable-interval 1-minute schedule of reinforcement in conjunction with a random number generator that assigned feeder operations between keys with equal probability. The duration of blackouts was varied between keys when each response initiated a blackout, and grain arranged by the variable-interval schedule was automatically presented after a blackout (Exp. I). In Exp. II every key peck, except for those that produced grain, initiated a blackout, and grain was dependent upon a response following a blackout. For each pigeon in Exp. I and for one pigeon in Exp. II, the relative frequency of responding on a key approximated, i.e., matched, the relative reciprocal of the duration of the blackout interval on that key. In a third experiment, blackouts scheduled on a variable-interval were of equal duration on the two keys. For one key, grain automatically followed each blackout; for the other key, grain was dependent upon a response and never followed a blackout. The relative frequency of responding on the former key, i.e., the delay key, better approximated the negative exponential function obtained by Chung (1965) than the matching function predicted by Chung and Herrnstein (1967).     

Some factors that influence the acquisition of complex, stereotyped, response sequences in pigeons

Two pigeons were required to peck six to nine illuminated response keys. A response on any one of the keys darkened that key. When each key had been darkened, a reinforcer was delivered. No specific sequence of key pecking was ever required. The keys were presented in various matrices: three by two, three by three, horizontal rows, and vertical columns. The keys either presented the same stimulus, white light; or each key presented a different stimulus, a color or form. The results indicated that although there were 720 to 362,880 different sequences that would produce reinforcement, each bird developed a particular, stereotyped sequence that dominated its behavior. Variability among the birds across phases yielded less than 60 sequences, .0001 to 6 percent of the possible sequences. The data suggest that a reinforcement contingency that includes “free choice” of response sequence will produce stereotypical response sequences that function as complex “units” of behavior.     

Reinforcement contingencies as discriminative stimuli: II. Effects of changes in stimulus probability.

Three pigeons were trained on a matching procedure involving a sample component and a choice component. Responding in the sample component, according to either a differential-reinforcement-of-low-rate schedule on some trials or a differential-reinforcement-of-other-behavior schedule on other trials, produced access to the choice component in which each of two keys was illuminated with a unique color. The correct choice response was defined by the contingency that was met to produce the choice. The food hopper operated for 1.5 seconds following an appropriate sample response and for 3 seconds following a correct choice response. A signal-detection analysis showed that variations in the probability of presentation of the different contingencies systematically affected response bias but not sensitivity to the contingencies as stimuli. Substitution of a blackout for food at the end of the sample component did not differentially affect performance, but elimination of the delay between sample and choice components generally increased the sensitivity measure. The findings suggest a role for reinforcement contingency discrimination in schedule-controlled responding.     

Independence of sensitivity to relative reinforcement rate and discriminability in signal detection.

Six pigeons were trained to detect differences between two white stimuli, S1 and S2, differing in duration and arranged probabilistically on the center key of a three-key chamber. Detection performance was measured at two levels of discriminability. At one level, S1 was five seconds and S2 was thirty seconds. At the other level, S1 was twenty seconds and S2 was thirty seconds. The procedure was a standard signal-detection yes-no design in which stimulus-presentation probability was varied from .1 to .9 at both discriminability levels. On completion of the center-key stimulus, a peck on the center key darkened the center-key light and turned on the two red side keys. A left-key response was "correct" on S1 trials, and a right-key response was "correct" on S2 trials. Correct responses produced food reinforcement on a variable-ratio 1.3 schedule. Incorrect responses produced three second blackout. Discriminability was higher for the five-second versus thirty-second conditions than for the twenty-second versus thirty-second conditions, but there were no differences in sensitivity of behavior to reinforcement variation for the two stimulus pairs. Response bias was a function of the relative reinforcement rate for correct choice responses.     

Adventitious control by the location of comparison stimuli in conditional discriminations.

In a conditional discrimination procedure, samples appeared in a center key, and comparisons appeared in two of four outer keys. The location of comparison keys varied from trial to trial. Separate learning curves for each of the six possible pairs of comparison keys were plotted in a signal-detection space, revealing different patterns of progress on each pair. Also, when learned conditional discriminations were disrupted, pairs of keys differed in their patterns of disruption. Varying the location of comparison stimuli among six different pairs of keys had not eliminated key position as a controlling aspect of the stimuli. The variations simply increased the number of stimulus compounds--key position and experimental stimuli--that the subject learned. Plotting conditional-discrimination learning curves in a signal-detection space reveals relations among hits, false alarms, accuracy, and comparison preference that help to define a subject's progress.     

Analysis of discriminative control by social behavioral stimuli

Visual discriminative control of the behavior of one rat by the behavior of another was studied in a two-compartment chamber. Each rat's compartment had a food cup and two response keys arranged vertically next to the clear partition that separated the two rats. Illumination of the leader's key lights signaled a “search” period when a response by the leader on the unsignaled and randomly selected correct key for that trial illuminated the follower's keys. Then, a response by the follower on the corresponding key was reinforced, or a response on the incorrect key terminated the trial without reinforcement. Accuracy of following the leader increased to 85% within 15 sessions. Blocking the view of the leader reduced accuracy but not to chance levels. Apparent control by visual behavioral stimuli was also affected by auditory stimuli and a correction procedure. When white noise eliminated auditory cues, social learning was not acquired as fast nor as completely. A reductionistic position holds that behavioral stimuli are the same as nonsocial stimuli; however, that does not mean that they do not require any separate treatment. Behavioral stimuli are usually more variable than nonsocial stimuli, and further study is required to disentangle behavioral and nonsocial contributions to the stimulus control of social interactions.