Relational Learning in Pigeons?

Two experiments investigated whether discrimination learning and transposition by pigeons were facilitated by the opportunity to compare rectangles differing in luminance or stars differing in number of vertices. In Experiment 1, one group was trained with stimuli from the same dimension appearing simultaneously on each trial, but for a second group such stimuli appeared on separate trials. The opportunity to compare stimuli from the same dimension on a single trial facilitated the learning of the luminance discrimination but not of the stars discrimination. Such comparison also resulted in greater luminance but not greater stars transposition. Using a different training procedure, Experiment 2 confirmed that the opportunity for comparison facilitated a luminance discrimination. The results for the star discrimination are entirely consistent with 'absolute' theories of discrimination learning; but the results for the luminance discrimination suggest some kind of 'relational' learning. Given the difference between the star and luminance discriminations, a low-level, sensory theory of relational learning seems most consistent with the data.     

Not all same-different discriminations are created equal: Evidence contrary to a unidimensional account of same-different learning

In Experiment 1, we trained four pigeons to concurrently discriminate displays of 16 same icons (16S) from displays of 16 different icons (16D) as well as between displays of same icons (16S) from displays that contained 15 same icons and one different icon (15S:1D). The birds rapidly learned to discriminate 16S vs. 16D displays, but they failed to learn to discriminate 16S vs. 15S:1D displays. In Experiment 2, the same pigeons acquired the 16S vs. 15S:1D task after being required to locate and peck at the odd-item in the 15S:1D displays. Acquisition of the 16S vs. 15S:1D task had little effect on discriminative performance in the concurrent 16S:16D task, suggesting that a unidimensional entropy explanation for mastery of these two same-different tasks is not viable. During testing, the birds transferred discriminative performance in both tasks to displays composed of different visual stimuli. Such concurrent discrimination learning, performance, and transfer suggest that pigeons are flexible in the way they process the displays seen in these two same-different tasks.     

The structure of pigeon multiple-class same-different learning

Three experiments examined the structure of the decision framework used by pigeons in learning a multiple-class same-different task. Using a same-different choice task requiring the discrimination of odd-item different displays (one or more of the display's component elements differed) from same displays (all display components identical), pigeons were concurrently trained with sets of four discriminable display types. In each experiment, the consistent group was tested such that the same and different displays of four display types were consistently mapped onto their choice alternatives. The inconsistent group received a conflicting mapping of the same and different displays and the choice alternatives that differed across the four display types but were consistent within a display type. Experiment 1 tested experienced pigeons, and Experiment 2 tested naive pigeons. In both experiments, the consistent group learned their discrimination faster and to a higher level of choice accuracy than did the inconsistent group, which performed poorly in general. Only in the consistent group was the discrimination transferred to novel stimuli, indicative of concept formation in that group. A third experiment documented that the different display classes were discriminable from one another. These results suggest that pigeons attempt to generate a single discriminative rule when learning this type of task, and that this general rule can cover a large variety of stimulus elements and organizations, consistent with previous evidence suggesting that pigeons may be capable of learning relatively unbounded relational same-different concepts.     

Evidence for a conceptual account of same-different discrimination learning in the pigeon

We trained pigeons to peck two different buttons in response to 16-iconsame arrays versus 16-icondifferent arrays. In thesame arrays, the icons were all the same as one another, whereas in thedifferent arrays, the icons were all different from one another. In Experiment 1, we upset the spatial regularities of the displays by disarranging the icons—randomly displacing each icon to reduce the degree of perceptual order. The pigeons’ discriminative performance was unaffected by disarranging. In Experiment 2, spatial regularities were disturbed by varying the rotation of the icons within a display. Again, no disruption in discriminative performance was observed. These and other findings suggest that pigeons treat the 16 icons as either the same or different despite changes in the spatial organization or orientation of the icons, thus implicating a conceptual rather than a perceptual process in same—different discrimination.     

Brief presentations are sufficient for pigeons to discriminate arrays of same and different stimuli

Four pigeons first learned to discriminate 16-item arrays of same from different pictorial stimuli. They were then tested with reduced exposure to the pictorial arrays, brought about by changes in the stimulus viewing requirement under fixed-ratio (FR) and fixed-interval (FI) schedules. Increasing the FR requirement enhanced discriminative performance up to 10 pecks; increasing the FI requirement enhanced discriminative performance up to 5 s. Exposures to the stimulus arrays averaging only 2 s supported reliable discrimination. Pigeons thus discriminate same from different stimuli with considerable speed, suggesting that same-different discrimination behavior is of substantial adaptive significance.     

Discrimination of dynamic change and constancy over time by pigeons

The detection of change over time is critical to the serial integration of reality. Three pigeons, in a same/different go/no-go discrimination, were rewarded for pecking at changing stimuli that oscillated back and forth in brightness over a specific range and not at constant, unchanging stimuli randomly selected from the same range. Experiment 1 tested their capacity to detect increasingly slower rates of change against a constant control. The results indicated that pigeons retrospectively integrate past experience over approximately 20–30 s. Experiment 2 tested combinations of brightness ranges and rates to examine the possible roles of perception and memory in this discrimination. Overall, the results indicate that pigeons can detect continuous changes in brightness over different temporal durations, and several lines of evidence suggest that a combination of perception and memory mechanisms are involved. Implications for the pigeons’experience of the recent past are considered.     

Discrimination of structure: I. Implications for connectionist theories of discrimination learning

In each of 4 experiments animals were given a structural discrimination task that involved visual patterns composed of identical features, but the spatial relations among the features were different for reinforced and nonreinforced trials. In Experiment 1 the stimuli were pairs of colored circles, and pigeons were required to discriminate between patterns that were the mirror image of each other. A related task was given to rats in Experiment 2. Subjects solved these discriminations. For Experiment 3, some pigeons were given a discrimination similar to that used in Experiment 1, which they solved, whereas others received a comparable task but with 3 colored circles present on every trial, which they failed to solve. The findings from Experiment 3 were replicated in Experiment 4 using different patterns. The results are difficult to explain by certain connectionist theories of discrimination learning, unless they are modified to take account of the way in which compound stimuli are structured.     

Dynamic object perception by pigeons: discrimination of action in video presentations

Two experiments examined the discrimination by pigeons of relative motion using computer-generated video stimuli. Using a go/no-go procedure, pigeons were tested with video stimuli in which the camera's perspective went either "around" or "through" an approaching object in a semi-realistic context. Experiment 1 found that pigeons could learn this discrimination and transfer it to videos composed from novel objects. Experiment 2 found that the order of the video's frames was critical to the discrimination of the videos. We hypothesize that the pigeons perceived a three-dimensional representation of the objects and the camera's relative motion and used this as the primary basis for discrimination. It is proposed that the pigeons might be able to form generalized natural categories for the different kinds of motions portrayed in the videos. Accepted after revision: 23 March 2001 Electronic Publication     

Discrimination of artificial polymorphous categories by rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta)

Monkeys (Macaca mulatta) were trained to discriminate between sets of artificial stimuli such as those used by Jitsumori (1993) for pigeons and humans. The stimuli were arrays of symbols differing along three two-valued (positive or negative) dimensions. The discrimination required was between polymorphous categories in which a positive stimulus was defined by possession of any 2 out of 3 positive features. Of the 5 monkeys, 3 learned the discrimination much faster than did pigeons, but transfer to novel stimuli was less impressive than had been shown in pigeons. The 3 monkeys showed high levels of transfer to the stimuli that contained either all 3 positive or all 3 negative features, but 2 of the 3 monkeys failed to show transfer to stimuli that had 1 of the 3 features replaced with a novel one. Analysis of the monkeys' performance raised doubts on the additive integration of features but supported learning of feature combinations as a basis for the discrimination of polymorphous categories by this species.     

Peak Shift on an Artificial Dimension

Blough (1975) proposed an elemental model of generalization and discrimination phenomena in which stimuli from physical dimensions, such as wavelength, are conceptualized as overlapping sets of elements. In order to test predictions generated by this model, we constructed an artificial 'dimension' of stimuli as a series of overlapping sets of arbitrary 'icons' (small, unrelated shapes). In Experiment 1, we trained pigeons to discriminate two neighbouring stimuli from this artificial dimension and then assessed their responses to other stimuli from the dimension. The results of these tests typified those obtained with stimuli from genuine physical dimensions-that is, we obtained positive and negative peak shifts. In Experiment 2, human subjects were given a similar discrimination task and produced an analogous set of results to those of the pigeons. These results support Blough's elemental theory and are not readily accommodated by Pearce's (1987) configural theory. In Experiment 3, both humans and pigeons were trained and tested with stimuli from a real physical dimension (luminance). The pigeons' results were again consistent with Blough's analysis, but those of the humans suggested the use of more sophisticated strategies that are unavailable to pigeons and that lie outside the scope of elemental models of discrimination learning.     

Discrimination of word-like compound visual stimuli by monkeys

In Experiment I, two monkeys solved a successive visual discrimination in which the four positive stimuli were the visual arrays RIM, LID, RAD and LAM while the four negative stimuli were RID, LIM, RAM and LAD. In Experiment II the same monkeys first learned a discrimination where the positive stimuli were pairs of letters (e.g. OB and AK) while the negative stimulus was the letter I; in a subsequent generalization test with all four possible pairings of the stimulus elements that had been positive during training (i.e. with OB, AK, OK and AB) the monkeys responded more strongly to the pairs that had been present in initial training. These results were discussed in relation to the theoretical analysis of configurational cues in animal discrimination learning and to the mechanism underlying visual discrimination of words by people.     

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.     

Discrimination of direction of movements in pigeons following previous experience of motion/static discrimination

Two experiments examined pigeons' discrimination of directional movement using pictorial images shown on computer monitors. Stimuli consisted of the movement of a bird against a stationary background or the movement of the background behind a stationary bird. In Experiment 1, pigeons were trained to discriminate either leftward or rightward motion of either the bird or the background from stationary frames drawn from the same movies. The background-discrimination group acquired the discrimination faster than the bird-discrimination group. In Experiment 2, transfer of the discrimination from the task of Experiment 1 to a discrimination between motion directions was examined. Most of the pigeons learned this discrimination rapidly, whereas in a pilot study in which direction discrimination was trained without previous static/movement discrimination, learning was poor. It appears that an experimental history of movement against stationary discrimination promoted the pigeons' learning of the directional motion discrimination.     

PIGEONS ARE SENSITIVE TO THE SPATIAL ORGANIZATION OF COMPLEX VISUAL STIMULI

Abstract— Two experiments investigated the role of spatial organisation in the discrimination and generalization of complex visual stimuli by pigeons. In Experiment 1, after pigeons had been trained to discriminate line drawings of four objects, they were tested with novel pictures in which the same component parts of the objects were spatially rearranged. The spatially scrambled pictures led to a dramatic drop in recognition accuracy, hut responding remained above chance. In Experiment 2, pigeons reached a high level of discriminative performance when required to choose among four different spatial arrangements of the same object parts. These results confirm Cerella's (1980) conclusion that pigeons discriminate the component parts of complex visual stimuli, but. unless it is assumed that the scrambling deleted or created emergent features, the results disconfirm his conclusion that spatial organization plays no role in pigeons' picture perception.     

The Effects of Hippocampal and Area Parahippocampalis Lesions in Pigeons: II. Concurrent Discrimination and Spatial Memory

Two experiments were conducted to examine the effects of bilateral hippocampus (Hp) and area parahippocampalis (APH) lesions in pigeons on the acquisition of a visual and spatial task. In Experiment 1, pigeons were trained on three successive six-pair concurrent discrimination tasks, each using a novel set of stimuli. There was no difference between control unoperated pigeons and Hp-APH pigeons in terms of the number of sessions required to learn either the first, second, or third concurrent discrimination task. In Experiment 2, the same pigeons were trained on an open-field spatial task similar in many ways to the radial-arm maze task used with rats. In contrast to the absence of impairments on the visual concurrent discrimination task, pigeons with Hp-APH lesions were severely impaired on the acquisition of the spatial task. These findings support the view that the Hp-APH in pigeons is important for the processing of spatial, rather than visual information.     

Categorization of natural movements by pigeons: visual concept discrimination and biological motion

In three experiments, pigeons were exposed to a discriminated autoshaping procedure in which categories of moving stimuli, presented on videotape, were differentially associated with reinforcement. All stimuli depicted pigeons making defined responses. In Experiment 1, one category consisted of several different scenes of pecking and the other consisted of scenes of walking, flying, head movements, or standing still. Four of the 4 birds for which pecking scenes were positive stimuli discriminated successfully, whereas only 1 of the 4 for which pecking was the negative category did so. In the pecking-positive group, there were differences between the pecking rates in the presence of the four negative actions, and these differences were consistent across subjects. In Experiment 2, only the categories of walking and pecking were used; some but not all birds learned this discrimination, whichever category was positive, and these birds showed some transfer to new stimuli in which the same movements were represented only by a small number of point lights (Johansson's “biological motion” displays). In Experiment 3, discriminations between pecking and walking movement categories using point-light displays were trained. Four of the 8 birds discriminated successfully, but transfer to fully detailed displays could not be demonstrated. Pseudoconcept control groups, in which scenes from the same categories of motion were used in both the positive and negative stimulus sets, were used in Experiments 1 and 3. None of the 8 pigeons trained under these conditions showed discriminative responding. The results suggest that pigeons can respond differentially to moving stimuli on the basis of movement cues alone.     

Imitative learning of stimulus-response and response-outcome associations in pigeons

A novel automated procedure was used to study imitative learning in pigeons. In Experiments 1 and 2, observer pigeons witnessed a demonstrator pigeon successfully performing an instrumental discrimination in which different discriminative stimuli indicated which of 2 topographically distinct responses (R1 and R2) resulted in the delivery of seed. The observers were then presented with the discriminative stimuli and given access to the response panel. Observer pigeons' behavior during the discriminative stimuli was influenced by how the demonstrator had responded during these stimuli. In Experiment 3, observers witnessed demonstrator pigeons performing R1 for Outcome 1 and R2 for Outcome 2. Observers then received a procedure designed to devalue Outcome 1 relative to Outcome 2 and were subsequently less likely to perform R1 than R2. These results suggest that pigeons can learn both stimulus response and response-outcome associations by observation.     

Discrimination of polymorphous stimulus sets by pigeons

Pigeons were trained to perform a visual discrimination between stimulus sets in which the presence of any two of three positive features made a stimulus positive, while any two of three negative features made it negative (there were thus three different positive and three different negative stimuli). After training, the birds were exposed to test stimuli that contained either all three positive or all three negative features. In Experiment I three pigeons were successfully trained by a successive method, and subsequently responded to the test stimuli as though they were positive or negative respectively. In Experiment II four pigeons were trained by a simultaneous method. Three learned the discrimination and generalized appropriately to the test stimuli, but they showed no preference between positive test and positive training stimuli, nor any consistent difference in speed of response to them; and similar results were found for negative stimuli. It is argued from this that the pigeons learned to respond to the stimuli as patterns (configurations of features) rather than to the constituent features, but that they generalized to the test stimuli by using the common features. The experiments show that pigeons could in principle learn to discriminate natural polymorphous classes (such as “pigeon” or “person”) without using any single feature, but neither the present experiments nor earlier ones demonstrating discriminations of such natural classes establish that pigeons make use of polymorphous concepts in the same way as people.     

Complex Visual Learning by Rats

Rats’ learning about visual patterns was studied in a computerized Y-maze where wide-angle stimuli were viewed from a distance. Many patterns were available; some were spatially complex and others were more homogeneous figures. Experiment 1 used a discrimination paradigm in which a single S⁺could be paired with any one of 15 different S⁻s. Hooded rats learned successively six such discrimination problems. Their learning rate improved across the series, and comparison with controls suggested that the learning-set did not merely reflect simple habituation. Experiments 2 and 3 employed Dark Agouti rats, again learning many discrimination problems. Each problem comprised a constant stimulus which was paired with stimuli which varied in trial-unique fashion. The version in which the constant stimulus was nonrewarded (S⁻) and the varying stimuli rewarded was performed better than the converse, constant S⁺and varying nonrewarded, reflecting rats’ preference for relatively unfamiliar stimuli. In the constant S⁻task, rats showed substantial within-problem learning when three novel problems were given per day for 20 trials each. Rats are capable of rapid learning about complex visual displays if we engage their natural dispositions to use vision for distal stimuli and to approach relatively unfamiliar cues.     

Discrimination of five-dimensional stimuli by pigeons: Limitations of feature analysis

Pigeons were trained to discriminate between stimuli constructed using five orthogonal two-valued features. The stimuli consisted of stylized monochrome drawings of seeds. Two different training procedures (conditional and simultaneous discrimination) were used. In the first two experiments, the discrimination required was between polymorphous categories, in which a positive stimulus was defined as one in which three or more of the five features took their positive values. Discrimination in both experiments was imperfect; the pigeons' behaviour only came under the control of a subset of the available features (one to three in Experiment 1, three or four in Experiment 2). In Experiment 3, single features had to be discriminated, while the remaining features varied. It was found that all five features of the “seed” stimuli could be discriminated, but one of them was exceptionally difficult. The results show that pigeons do not reliably use all the features available to them when making category discriminations. This casts doubts on feature analysis as a basis for the excellent performance pigeons show when required to discriminate between categories of natural objects.