The effect of overtraining on behavioral contrast and the peak-shift

Following initial discrimination training between two wavelength stimuli and a subsequent generalization test to the wavelength dimension, Group 1 was “overtrained” for 105 days on the original discrimination. Group 2 was “overtrained” with the original positive stimulus and a new negative stimulus, a white line. Group 3 was “overtrained” with the original negative stimulus and a new positive stimulus, the white line. Each 15 days of extended training were followed by a wavelength generalization test similar to the first test. The results suggest that there is no consistent relationship between the response rate in positive stimulus immediately before the generalization test and whether or not a peak shift occurs during the test.     

Discrimination learning with and without “errors”

Responses to S− (“errors”) are not a necessary condition for the formation of an operant discrimination of color. Errors do not occur if discrimination training begins early in conditioning and if S+ and S− initially differ with respect to brightness, duration and wavelength. After training starts, S−'s duration and brightness is progressively increased until S+ and S− differ only with respect to wavelength. Errors do occur if training starts after much conditioning in the presence of S+ has occurred or if S+ and S− differ only with respect to wavelength throughout training. Performance following discrimination learning without errors lacks three characteristics that are found following learning with errors. Only those birds that learned the discrimination with errors showed (1) “emotional” responses in the presence of S−, (2) an increase in the rate (or a decrease in the latency) of its response to S+, and (3) occasional bursts of responses to S−.     

Average uncertainty as a determinant of observing behavior

After discrimination training on a multiple variable-interval extinction schedule of food reinforcement, pigeons were placed on the uncued or mixed version of the same schedule and allowed to make an optional “observing response” that converted the uncued schedule to the corresponding cued schedule by providing a 20-sec exposure to the appropriate discriminative stimulus. The schedule consisted of one hundred 40-sec components, and the probability that any one of them would be a variable-interval component was systematically varied between 0.00 and 1.00. The results showed that the amount of observing behavior was an inverted “U” function of the probability of the variable-interval component. Few observing responses occurred at probabilities of 0.00 or 1.00, and maximum responding occurred at a value less than 0.50.     

Selective attention: the effects of combining stimuli which control incompatible behavior

Four rhesus monkeys learned both a color and tilt discrimination. The stimuli were combined to produce incompatible behavior. The behavior controlled by one set of stimuli was reinforced until “errors” virtually disappeared. The stimuli were tested separately again. Sixteen replications of the entire procedure indicated that the stimuli producing “errors” were ignored.     

The effectiveness of fading in programming a simultaneous form discrimination for retarded children

A non-verbal teaching program, combined with reinforcement and extinction (Program Group), was compared with reinforcement and extinction alone (Test Group) in teaching retarded children to discriminate circles from ellipses. In the Program Group, fading techniques were used to transfer stimulus control from “bright vs. dark” to “form vs. no-form” and then to “circle vs. ellipse”. The Test Group had the task of learning the circle-ellipse discrimination with no prior teaching program. With the program, seven of 10 children learned the circle-ellipse discrimination. Without the program, one of nine learned. The eight Test-Group children who failed to learn circle vs. ellipse were then given the opportunity to learn the form no-form discrimination by reinforcement and extinction alone, without fading. Six of the eight learned, but only three of these six then learned circle vs. ellipse on a second test. All seven Program-Group children who had learned form vs. no-form also learned the circle-ellipse discrimination by means of fading; each of the seven made fewer errors than any of the three who succeeded on the second test. Children who failed to learn circle vs. ellipse adopted response patterns incompatible with the development of appropriate stimulus control.     

Generalization gradients of inhibition after different amounts of training

Five groups of pigeons received seven sessions of variable-interval reinforcement for pecking a blank white key, followed by either 1, 2, 4, 8, or 16 sessions of training on a successive discrimination in which the positive stimulus was the blank white key and the negative stimulus was a black vertical line on the white key. After training, a generalization test was administered along the line-tilt continuum. Relative gradients of inhibition became steeper with increased amounts of training, and reliably nonhorizontal absolute gradients were obtained only from groups of subjects with at least four days of training. Therefore, inhibitory stimulus control improves with added training. Several problems with the concept of “inhibition” are examined and some implications of the results for theoretical analyses of operant discrimination learning are discussed.     

Recognition by the pigeon of stimuli varying in two dimensions

Pigeons served in four experiments, each of which involved about 44,000 discrete 1.2-sec trials under steady-state conditions. The first experiment scaled a short segment of the visual wavelength continuum; this dimension was then combined in a conditional discrimination with each of three others; time after reinforcement, tone frequency, and line tilt. In the two-stimulus experiments, the birds' responses were reinforced in the presence of only one stimulus combination: “582 nm” together with “2 min after reinforcement”, “3990 Hz”, or “vertical line”. Many other stimulus combinations also appeared equally often and went without reinforcement. The wavelength stimuli conformed to an equal-interval scale, and per cent response was generally linear with wavelength, when scaled on cumulative normal coordinates. The components of the compound stimulus were found to interact in a multiplicative fashion; when one component differed greatly from its reinforcement value, changes in the other component had relatively little effect. For the “time”-“wavelength” compound, this interaction appeared to be modified by the effects of set or attention. Certain response latency data are reported, and other combination rules are discussed.     

Reinforcement duration and the peak shift in post-discrimination gradients

Pigeons were trained to key-peck for food, first with single-stimulus training and then with successive discrimination (multiple schedule) training. In the multiple schedule, two different wavelengths were each correlated with equally frequent variable-interval reinforcement but different durations (6 sec vs. 2 sec) of access to grain. For some birds, the different durations of feeding cycle were cued by different intensities of the food hopper light. For some of these “cued” birds, single-stimulus training had been carried out with 6-sec feedings and when multiple-schedule training was introduced, the novel stimulus was correlated with 2-sec feedings. For the others, 2-sec feedings were originally used, and the novel stimulus was then present during the 6-sec reinforcement duration. The cueing procedure enhanced discrimination performance, and was necessary for the consistent production of a peak shift. In addition, the condition in which original training had been carried out with 6-sec feedings, and thus reinforcement duration was reduced in the presence of the novel stimulus, led to the best performance.     

Pigeons can discriminate locations presented in pictures

The present experiments were designed to teach pigeons to discriminate two locations represented by color photographs. Two sets of photographs were taken at two distinctive locations on a university campus. These sets represented several standpoints at each location. For the true-discrimination group, pictures from the two locations were differentially associated with reward; for the pseudodiscrimination group, half of the views from each location were arbitrarily but consistently associated with reward. The former group acquired the discrimination much more rapidly. These birds also showed good transfer to new views from the standpoints used in training and to a new standpoint at each location not used in training. In a second experiment, another group of pigeons could terminate any training trial by pecking an “advance” key. Three of 4 subjects used this option to reduce the duration of trials in which pictures from the negative location were presented. These data suggest that pigeons can integrate views shown in pictures into a “concept” of a location. The method used here may be the experimental analogue of a common, natural process by which animals learn to identify locations.     

Stimulus-specific contrast effects during operant discrimination learning

In two experiments, pigeons' responding was equally reinforced in the presence of four line-orientation stimuli. Responding was then reinforced when only two of the four orientation stimuli were present; the remaining two orientations appeared during extinction. Response rates were often highest in the stimulus adjacent to the orientations presented during extinction and often lowest in that orientation adjacent to the orientations presented with reinforcement. These effects were stronger and more persistent when the stimuli were separated by a smaller angle, rendering the discrimination more difficult. These and other data suggest that discrimination training may not be accurately explained in terms of the simple effects of reinforcement and nonreinforcement associated with isolated stimuli, nor by accounts that depend upon stimulus generalization. Recent accounts of contrast that depend upon “emotionality” produced by nonreinforced responding or upon reinforcement-elicited responses are also difficult to apply to these data.     

Pigeon concept formation: successive and simultaneous acquisition

Pigeons were trained to discriminate the presence of one or more human forms in displays projected on a panel above the response key. This task was mastered, although imperfectly, with successive and with simultaneous presentations of positive and negative instances. The course of acquisition of the discrimination was similar for the two training procedures. Animals were able to transfer the discrimination from the successive to the simultaneous situation. Various tests were carried out to control for artifactual cues on which the discrimination might have been based. The discrimination was maintained when new displays were presented, when reinforcement was omitted, and when displays were inverted 180°. Animals were also able to discriminate between pairs of displays that were identical, except that one member of the pair contained a human form. The research extends the techniques used by Herrnstein and Loveland (1964), and confirms their finding that pigeons can master the concept of “person-present” in a visual display.     

Teaching serial position sequences to monkeys with a delayed matching-to-sample procedure

Comparison was made of two methods for training monkeys to “observe” a two-member serial position sequence by pressing two consecutively lighted keys and then to “report” the sequence by pressing the same two keys in the same order but without the lights. A fading technique involving gradual elimination of brightness cues from “reporting” keys was found more effective than a no-fading procedure in which the cues remained bright during training and then were suddenly removed. Animals that failed to learn to report a new sequence with the no-fading procedure sometimes developed behavior incompatible with that desired. They made repeated and specific errors that prematurely terminated trials of the sequence to-be-learned, even though the correct key was cued by a bright light. They behaved appropriately, however, on succeeding trials of other sequences. Thus, the errors were followed by trials on which reinforcement occurred. Manipulation of this contingency indicated its importance in maintaining the stereotyped error patterns.     

Conditional discrimination learning: A critique and amplification

Carter and Werner recently reviewed the literature on conditional discrimination learning by pigeons, which consists of studies of matching-to-sample and oddity-from-sample. They also discussed three models of such learning: the “multiple-rule” model (learning of stimulus-specific relations), the “configuration” model, and the “single-rule” model (concept learning). Although their treatment of the multiple-rule model, which seems most applicable to the pigeon data, is generally excellent, their discussion of the other two models is incomplete and sometimes inaccurate. Potential problems of terminology are discussed in the present paper, as are additional lines of research that deserve consideration by those interested in further work in this area. The issue of response versus stimulus selection (configuration versus compound-cue learning) is discussed in connection with the configuration model. Particular attention is given to Carter and Werner's criticism of the application, in studies with other species, of the learning set procedure in testing for single-rule learning. Some of the important related issues are: the bias for improvement on new problems in a series, the adequacy of a multiple-rule model to explain learning set formation, and evidence in favor of the single-rule model, at least in primates. Consideration of these additional contributions to the study of conditional discrimination learning emphasizes the usefulness of this task in the comparative study of cognitive processes.     

Development of a complex multiple schedule in the chimpanzee

The development of chimpanzee behavior on a four-component, three-lever multiple schedule is described. Component schedules included the Sidman avoidance procedure with a concurrent discriminated avoidance schedule on a second lever, fixed ratio performance for food, differential reinforcement of low rate for water requiring a dual response chain, and a symbol discrimination task for continuous food reinforcement using three levers. The avoidance component of this schedule was employed during the January 31, 1961 suborbital space flight of the chimpanzee “Ham.” On November 29, 1961, the chimpanzee “Enos” performed on the multiple schedule during three orbits around the earth in a Mercury capsule.     

Pigeons'' spatial memory: II. Acquisition of delayed matching of key location and transfer to new locations

Five hungry pigeons first received delayed matching of key location training. Trials began with a “ready” stimulus (brief operation of the grain feeder). Then one (randomly chosen) of a set of four keys from a three-by-three matrix was lit briefly as the sample. After a short delay (retention interval), the sample key was lit again along with one of the other eight keys. A peck at the key that had served as the sample produced grain reinforcement, whereas a peck to the other key produced only the intertrial interval. After delayed matching of key location was learned, the remaining five key locations were introduced as samples. Four of the five birds performed at considerably above-chance levels on the novel sample trials during the first as well as subsequent sessions. These results suggest that pigeons sometimes learn the single rule—“choose the location that matches the sample.” The relevance of these results to the issue of whether pigeons learn a generalized matching rule (i.e., a concept of “sameness”) is discussed.     

General attentiveness effects of discriminative training

Using a design that permitted the simultaneous assessment of intra-, inter-, and extradimensional effects of discriminative training, the generality of discriminative effects that have been said to reflect increases in “general attentiveness” was assessed. Pigeons received either discriminative training with two stimuli correlated with reinforcement and one stimulus correlated with nonreinforcement, or nondifferential reinforcement (control) training. One positive stimulus was part of an intradimensional task and the other was not. After training, generalization tests were conducted to assess stimulus control along several dimensions. Discriminative training resulted in increased control along dimensions of the positive stimulus involved in the intradimensional task, but not along any dimensions of the other positive stimulus. The results suggested that discriminative training leads to increases in attention that are neither so general as suggested by the “general attentiveness” view nor so specific as to be revealed solely by intradimensional effects.     

Food delivery as a conditional stimulus: Feature-learning and memory in pigeons

Three experiments investigated the learning and memory of discriminations based on presence versus absence of a pre-trial food delivery. In Experiment 1 half the illuminations of a response key were followed by food regardless of the subject's behavior. In one group an extra food delivery preceded only reinforced trials (feature-positive condition), whereas in a second group it preceded only nonreinforced trials (feature-negative condition). Key pecks and approaches revealed more rapid and superior discrimination learning in the first group. Experiment 2 replicated the results of Experiment 1 but yielded no evidence that greater “unexpectedness” of pretrial food conditions facilitates discriminative performance. In Experiment 3, individual pigeons trained on a conditional discrimination exhibited a within-subject feature-positive superiority. Delay between pretrial and trial stimuli interacted with feature-positive versus feature-negative training in both the between-group (Experiment 2) and within-subject (Experiment 3) procedures: performance was decremented at both short and long delays in the feature-positive condition but was decremented only at longer delays in the feature-negative condition. The feature-positive superiority obtained here is incompatible with explanations based on either the general concept of “perceptual organization” or on the conditional nature of feature-negative discriminations.     

Stimulus properties of conspecific behavior

Two experiments identified the conditions in which the behavior of one bird acquired discriminative control of the behavior of a second bird. The schedule-controlled behaviors of the “stimulus” bird were differentially correlated with the components of a multiple schedule according to which the pecking of an “experimental” bird produced food. In Experiment 1, three pairs of pigeons acquired a successive discrimination and two reversals with the conspecific stimuli. Experiment 2 included a control condition in which no systematic relationship existed between the conspecific stimuli and the component schedules. While differential responding during the components of the multiple schedule was again found when the conspecific stimuli were available, differential responding did not occur in the control condition. Test conditions included in the experiments indicated that (a) the differential responding was not dependent on the discriminative properties of reinforcement, (b) the pecking of the stimulus and experimental birds was temporally interrelated, (c) the visual conspecific stimuli were critical to the maintenance of the discrimination, and (d) the observed stimulus control immediately generalized to an unfamiliar conspecific.     

Preference for signaled over unsignaled shock schedules: Ruling out asymmetry and response fixation as factors

Experiment 1 tested whether a “symmetrical” choice procedure yields results different from those previously reported using the “unidirectional” standard changeover procedure (e.g., Badia & Culbertson, 1972). Subjects could change at any time from unsignaled to signaled shock by pressing a lever and from signaled to unsignaled shock by pressing a second lever. Results were identical to those of the standard procedure and showed that the standard procedure is fully adequate. Experiment 2 tested whether choice of high density signaled shock over low-density unsignaled shock (Badia, Coker, & Harsh, 1973) resulted from initial training with equal-density schedules. Subjects were trained and tested with signaled shock twice as dense as unsignaled shock. Three of four subjects strongly preferred the signaled condition, thus ruling out carry-over and “response fixation” as alternative explanations.     

Neural coding of reward magnitude in the orbitofrontal cortex of the rat during a five-odor olfactory discrimination task

The orbitofrontal cortex (OBFc) has been suggested to code the motivational value of environmental stimuli and to use this information for the flexible guidance of goal-directed behavior. To examine whether information regarding reward prediction is quantitatively represented in the rat OBFc, neural activity was recorded during an olfactory discrimination “go”/“no-go” task in which five different odor stimuli were predictive for various amounts of reward or an aversive reinforcer. Neural correlates related to both actual and expected reward magnitude were observed. Responses related to reward expectation occurred during the execution of the behavioral response toward the reward site and within a waiting period prior to reinforcement delivery. About one-half of these neurons demonstrated differential firing toward the different reward sizes. These data provide new and strong evidence that reward expectancy, regardless of reward magnitude, is coded by neurons of the rat OBFc, and are indicative for representation of quantitative information concerning expected reward. Moreover, neural correlates of reward expectancy appear to be distributed across both motor and nonmotor phases of the task.