Detecting a nonevent: Delayed presence-versus-absence discrimination in pigeons

Eight pigeons were trained on a delayed presence-versus-absence discrimination paradigm in which a sample stimulus was presented on some trials but not on others. If a sample was presented, then a response to one choice key produced food. If no sample was presented, a response to the other choice key produced food. The basic finding was that performance remained constant and well above 50% correct on no-sample trials as the retention interval increased, whereas performance dropped precipitously (to below 50% correct) on sample trials. In the second phase of the experiment, all of the trials were no-sample trials, and reinforcers were delivered probabilistically for one group of pigeons and according to time-based schedules for the other group. The exact reinforcement probabilities used in Phase 2 were those calculated to be in effect on no-sample trials in Phase 1 (according to a discrete-state model of performance). Subjects did not show exclusive preference for the richer alternative on no-sample trials in the first phase, but those in the probabilistic group developed near-exclusive preference for the richer alternative during the second phase. These data are inconsistent with the predictions of the discrete-state model, but are easily accommodated by an account based on signal detection theory, which also can be applied effectively to discrimination of event duration and the “subjective shortening” effect.     

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.     

Choice, relative reinforcer duration, and the changeover ratio

Relative reinforcer duration was varied in concurrent schedules with a fixed-ratio four changeover requirement. The schedule in effect after each reinforcer was randomly chosen. For all three pigeons, relative response rates overmatched relative reinforcer durations. Time allocation was less extreme and, on the average, matched relative reinforcer duration. In a subsequent manipulation, the level of preference was shown to depend on the size of the changeover requirement. These results are similar to those from related unequal reinforcement-frequency procedures.     

Short-component multiple schedules: effects of relative reinforcement duration

Pigeons were exposed to multiple variable-interval 2-min variable-interval 2-min schedules of food presentation in which relative duration of food presentation was manipulated. When components alternated every 5 sec and were scheduled on separate response keys, relative response rates closely matched relative reinforcement duration in three of four pigeons. On the other hand, relative response rates were insensitive to relative reinforcement duration when components scheduled on a single response key alternated every 5 sec, and when components scheduled on separate response keys alternated every 2 min. Thus, both rapid alternation and spatial separation of components were necessary to produce approximate matching of relative responding to relative reinforcement duration. This finding contrasts with previous findings that only rapid component alternation is necessary for matching when relative rate of reinforcement is manipulated.     

Multiple schedule component duration: a reanalysis of Shimp and Wheatley (1971) and Todorov (1972)

The tendency for relative response rate to approach matching as multiple schedule component duration decreases has been interpreted as confirming a prediction of Herrnstein's multiple schedule equation. However, the equation predicts that absolute response rate will decrease in both multiple schedule components as component duration decreases. The absolute response-rate data of two studies of component duration do not support this prediction; absolute rate either increased or remained relatively constant.     

Signal detection and matching: analyzing choice on concurrent variable-interval schedules.

Pigeons' pecks on a red key and a green key were followed by access to grain according to pairs of concurrent independent variable-interval schedules in a combined signal detection/matching law paradigm. Pecks on the red key were reinforced by the richer variable-interval schedule if a short-duration tone had been presented; pecks on the green key were reinforced by the richer variable-interval schedule if a long-duration tone had been presented. Pecks on the green key given a short-duration tone, or on the red key given a long-duration tone, were reinforced by the leaner variable-interval schedule. The data were analyzed according to both signal detection's and the matching law's separate measures of, first, the discrimination of the choices and, second, the bias to make one response or another. Increasing the difficulty of the tone-duration discrimination decreased both methods' measures of the discrimination of the choices and did not change both methods' measures of the bias to make one response or another. Changing the leaner variable-interval schedule so that it approached the richer variable-interval schedule decreased signal detection's measure of discrimination but left its measure of response bias and the matching law measures unchanged. Data collected only until a subject's first changeover response following presentation of a long or a short tone showed higher values for both methods' measures of discrimination, no change in signal detection's measure of response bias, and lower values for the matching law's measure of response bias. Relationships between the matching law's and signal detection's methods of analyzing choice are discussed. It is concluded that a signal detection analysis is more efficient for examining changes in the difficulty of a discrimination, whereas a matching law analysis is more effective for examining the effects of changes in relative reinforcer frequency.     

The interaction of stimulus and reinforcer control in complex temporal discrimination.

Six pigeons were trained in a discrete-trials signal-detection procedure to discriminate between a fixed-duration stimulus (5 s or 20 s) and a set of variable durations ranging from 2.5 s to 57.5 s in steps of 5 s. For each fixed-duration stimulus, the ratio of reinforcer frequencies contingent upon reporting the fixed versus the variable stimulus was systematically manipulated. Detection performance was well controlled by both the stimulus value and the reinforcer ratio. Both the discriminability between the fixed duration and the set of variable durations, and the discriminability between the fixed duration and each of the variable durations, were independent of the reinforcer-frequency ratio when discriminability was measured as log d. The sensitivity of response bias to reinforcement-ratio changes was independent of the value of the fixed duration, but was not independent of the discriminability of the variable durations from the fixed durations. Under current models, discriminability measures in complex temporal discrimination may be independent of biasing manipulations, but bias measures are not independent of stimulus values.     

Effects of varying stimulus disparity and the reinforcer ratio in concurrent-schedule and signal-detection procedures.

The present study measured the effects of stimulus and reinforcer variations on pigeons' behavior in two different choice procedures. Two intensities of white light were presented as the stimuli on the main key in a switching-key concurrent schedule and as the sample stimuli in a signal-detection procedure. Under both procedures, the scheduled rate of reinforcement was varied across conditions to produce various ratios of obtained reinforcement. These ratios were obtained for seven pairs of light intensities. In the concurrent schedules, the effects of reinforcer-ratio variations were positively correlated with the physical disparity between the two light intensities. In the signal-detection procedure, changes in the reinforcer ratio produced greater effects on performance when stimulus disparity was very low or very high compared to those found at intermediate levels of stimulus disparity. This discrepancy creates a dilemma for existing behavioral models of signal-detection performance.     

Choice, experience, and the generalized matching law

Five pigeons were exposed to different pairs of concurrent variable-interval, variable-interval schedules on nine experimental conditions of 30 sessions each. For every session, the parameters of the generalized matching equation were computed for the first five, six, seven, eight, and nine experimental conditions. The exponent a, both for response and time distribution, tended to decrease with increases in number of experimental conditions and to increase with number of sessions per condition, but values of k (bias) varied unsystematically. When the subjects were exposed to five new pairs of schedules, with 55 sessions per condition, the findings were confirmed. Data from the literature on the generalized matching law suggest that the variability of exponent values may be explained in part by the use of naive or experienced subjects in different investigations and by the variability in number of experimental conditions and in number of sessions per condition.     

Effects of differences between stimuli, responses, and reinforcer rates on conditional discrimination performance

In a discrete-trial conditional discrimination procedure, 4 pigeons obtained food reinforcers by pecking a key with a short latency on trials signaled by one stimulus and by pecking the same key with a long latency on trials signaled by a second stimulus. The physical difference between the two stimuli and the temporal separation between the latency values required for reinforcement were varied factorially over four sets of conditions, and the ratio of reinforcer rates for short and long latencies was varied within each set of conditions. Stimulus discrimination varied directly with both stimulus and response differences and was unaffected by the reinforcer ratio. Sensitivity to reinforcement, estimated by generalized-matching-law fits to the data within each set of conditions, varied directly with the response difference but inversely with the stimulus difference arranged between sets of conditions. Because variations in stimulus differences, response differences, and reinforcer differences did not have equivalent effects, these findings question the functional equivalence of the three terms of the discriminated operant: antecedent stimuli, behavior, and consequences.     

Delay-interval illumination changes interfere with pigeon short-term memory.

Pigeons acquired a successive depayed matching-to-sample task at delay intervals ranging from 2.5 to 7 seconds. Test sessions were conducted during which delay-interval illumination conditions were changed from those illumination conditions that prevailed during the baselines. Compared to baseline delayed matching performance, changing delay-interval illumination disrupted matching. This disruption occurred whether the change in delay-interval illumination represented an increase or a decrease, relative to the baseline, and whether there was or was not a change in illumination during the test session. It was concluded that illumination per se introduced during delay intervals of delayed matching tasks does not interfere with pigeon short-term memory. Rather, a change in delay-interval illumination, relative to the baseline, appears to retroactively interfere in pigeon short-term memory.     

Pigeons' spatial memory: factors affecting delayed matching of key location.

The delayed-matching-to-sample procedure was modified to study pigeons' spatial memory. Nine pecking keys, arranged as a three-by-three matrix, served as the spatial cues. Trials began with a brief "ready" stimulus (dimming of the houselight). Then a randomly chosen key was lit briefly as a sample. After a short delay 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, where as a peck to the other key produced only the intertrial interval. After delayed matching of key location was learned, the effects of sample and delay duration, number of keys illuminated as sample and comparisons, and organization of three-key samples were studied. Matching accuracy decreased as sample duration decreased, delay increased, the number of locations serving as samples increased, the number and proximity of comparisons increased, and when the three-key samples were "discontinuous" rather than "lines".     

Delayed stimulus control: recall for single and relational stimuli.

In a discrete-trial symbolic matching-to-sample procedure, pigeons' left-key responses were reinforced following presentation of one center-key sample, and right-key responses were reinforced following presentation of another. Recallability was measured by the difference between log ratios of left to right responses following each sample. In Experiment 1, samples were successively presented same or different wavelengths in the relational discrimination, or individual wavelengths in the single discrimination. The rate at which recallability decreased with increasing delay since sample presentation was the same for single and relational discriminations, but the initial level of performance differed, indicating that the relational discrimination was more difficult. In Experiment 2, recall functions for easy and difficult discriminations between individual wavelengths also differed in levels of initial performance but not in rate of decrement of recallability over time. Recall for stimuli differing in complexity may therefore reflect differences in discrimination difficulty.     

Response bias and the discrimination of stimulus duration

Pigeons discriminated stimulus duration in a psychophysical choice situation. Following presentation of any duration from a set of short duration (11 to 15 sec), responses on a red key were reinforced intermittently. Following presentation of any duration from a set of long durations (16 to 22 sec), responses on a green key were reinforced intermittently. Relative reinforcement rates were manipulated for choice responses across conditions. As relative reinforcement rates were varied, psychometric functions showed shifts in green-key responses at all durations. A signal-detection analysis showed that sensitivity remained roughly constant across conditions while response bias changed as a function of changes in relative reinforcement rate. Relative error rates tended to match relative reinforcement rates.     

On the discriminability of stimulus duration.

The performance of pigeons trained to detect differences in the duration of stimuli was analysed using a matching model of signal detection. Two white stimuli, S1 and S2, differing in duration, were arranged with equal probability on the center key of a three-key chamber. S1 was systematically varied from 5 seconds to 25 seconds while S2 remained constant at 30 seconds. On completion of the center-key stimulus, a peck on the center key turned on the two red side keys. A left-key response was "correct" when S1 had been in effect on the center key and a right-key response was "correct" on S2 trials. A correct response produced a 3-second magazine light accompanied intermittently by food. Incorrect responses produced 3-second blackouts. Detection performance was measured under two procedures. In the first, the obtained reinforcement ratio was uncontrolled by allowing the number of food reinforcements obtained for correct left- and right-key responses to vary as the stimuli were changed. In the second procedure, the presentation of food reinforcement was controlled by holding the obtained reinforcement ratio constant. Discriminability changed as a function of stimulus differences under both procedures. No such trend was found in response bias.     

Melioration, matching, and maximization

Pigeons were studied in an experiment involving two concurrently available response keys. Conditions were such that in the first condition the predictions of melioration (Herrnstein & Vaughan, 1980), minimization of deviation from matching, and maximization were identical: relative time on the right key should have fallen between .125 and .25, which in fact occurred. In the second condition, melioration predicted a shift in relative time on the right to between .75 and .875, which would involve a transient deviation from matching as well as a substantial drop in rate of reinforcement. All three birds eventually shifted their distribution of behavior to within the range predicted by melioration.     

Effects of relative reinforcer frequency on complex color detection

Pigeons were trained under a discrete-trials detection procedure in which one of a set of color stimuli was presented on the center key and a single response turned off the stimulus and illuminated two side keys. Single responses to one or the other side key produced occasional reinforcers depending on the value of the color stimulus. In Experiment 1, one color-stimulus set comprised 559, 564, 569, and 574 nm, and right-key pecks were occasionally reinforced following presentations of members of this set. The other stimulus set comprised 579, 584, 589, and 594 nm, and left-key pecks were occasionally reinforced following presentations of members of this set. Across seven experimental conditions, the left/(left + right) relative reinforcer frequency was varied from .1 to .9. In Experiment 2, one stimulus set contained only one member, 574 nm, and right-key responses were occasionally reinforced following its presentation. Over 12 experimental conditions, two manipulations were carried out. First, the number of stimuli comprising the other stimulus set was increased from one (579 nm) to two (579 and 584 nm) to three (579, 584, and 589 nm) and to four (579, 584, 589, and 594 nm), and left-key responses were reinforced occasionally following center-key presentations of members of this set. Second, for each stimulus combination, the left/(left + right) relative reinforcer frequency was varied from .1 to .5 to .9 across three experimental conditions. The principal finding of Experiments 1 and 2 was that reinforcers and stimuli interacted in their effects on behavior. In Experiment 3, pairs of adjacent stimuli (5 nm apart) in the range 559 to 594 nm were presented in each experimental condition, and the left/(left + right) relative reinforcer frequency was held constant at .5. The data from all three experiments were analyzed according to a detection model describing performance in multiple-stimulus two-response procedures. This model provided independent measures of stimulus discriminability, contingency discriminability, and bias. The analysis showed that (a) consistent with the color-naming function, pigeons were better able to discriminate between higher nanometer values than lower nanometer values; (b) their ability to discriminate between the stimuli was independent of the number of wavelengths comprising each stimulus set; (c) they allocated delivered reinforcers very accurately to the previously emitted response; and (d) no consistent biases emerged.     

Most directed forgetting in pigeons can be attributed to the absence of reinforcement on forget trials during training or to other procedural artifacts.

In research on directed forgetting in pigeons using delayed matching procedures, remember cues, presented in the delay interval between sample and comparisons, have been followed by comparisons (i.e., a memory test), whereas forget cues have been followed by one of a number of different sample-independent events. The source of directed forgetting in delayed matching to sample in pigeons was examined in a 2 x 2 design by independently manipulating whether or not forget-cue trials in training ended with reinforcement and whether or not forget-cue trials in training included a simultaneous discrimination (involving stimuli other than those used in the matching task). Results were consistent with the hypothesis that reinforced responding following forget cues is sufficient to eliminate performance deficits on forget-cue probe trials. Only when reinforcement was omitted on forget-cue trials in training (whether a discrimination was required or not) was there a decrement in accuracy on forget-cue probe trials. When reinforcement is present, however, the pattern of responding established during and following a forget cue in training may also play a role in the directed forgetting effect. These findings support the view that much of the evidence for directed forgetting using matching procedures may result from motivational and behavioral artifacts rather than the loss of memory.     

The interaction between stimulus and reinforcer control on remembering.

In a symbolic matching-to-sample task, 6 pigeons obtained food by pecking a red side key when the brighter of two white lights had been presented on the center key and by pecking a green side key when the dimmer of two white lights had been presented on the center key. Across Part 1 and Parts 6 to 10, the delay between sample-stimulus presentation and the availability of the choice keys was varied between 0 s and 25 s. Across Parts 1 to 5, the delay between the emission of a correct choice and the delivery of a reinforcer was varied between 0 s and 30 s. Although increasing both types of delay decreased stimulus discriminability, lengthening the stimulus-choice delay produced a greater decrement in choice accuracy than did lengthening the choice-reinforcer delay. Additionally, the relative reinforcer rate for correct choice was varied across both types of delay. The sensitivity of behavior to the distribution of reinforcers decreased as discriminability decreased under both procedures. These data are consistent with the view, based on the generalized matching law, that sample stimuli and reinforcers interact in their control over remembering.     

Auditory stimulus control in pigeons: Jenkins and Harrison (1960) revisited

Pigeons were trained to peck a key in the presence of a 1000-Hz tone on a variable-interval one-minute schedule of reinforcement. One group was trained with an illuminated key; the other was trained in a totally dark chamber. During a generalization test on tonal frequency, subjects trained and tested with the key illuminated produced rather shallow gradients around the training value; subjects trained and tested in the dark produced steeper generalization gradients. These data replicate Jenkins and Harrison's (1960) finding that tone acquires relatively little control over responding and demonstrate that this absence of control is a function of the presence of the keylight.