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.     

Effects of D-amphetamine and ethanol on variable and repetitive key-peck sequences in pigeons

This experiment assessed the effects of d-amphetamine and ethanol on reinforced variable and repetitive key-peck sequences in pigeons. Pigeons responded on two keys under a multiple schedule of Repeat and Vary components. In the Repeat component, completion of a target sequence of right, right, left, left resulted in food. In the Vary component, 4-peck sequences differing from the previous 10 produced food. d-Amphetamine (0.1-3.0 mg/kg, i.m.) was administered in two separate phases, separated by ethanol administration (1.0-2.0 g/kg, i.g.). Under control conditions, measures of variability were high in the Vary component, and lower in the Repeat component. Following administration of the highest dose of d-amphetamine, but not ethanol, response rates decreased in both components. d-Amphetamine and ethanol tended to increase overall sequence variability in the Repeat component, and had less of an effect in the Vary component. Performance in the Repeat component during Phase 2 of d-amphetamine administration was more disrupted than during Phase 1. Measures of variability and repetition based on shifts in the relative frequency distributions of the 16 possible keypeck sequences differed from those based on the overall measure of variability, highlighting the importance of considering both molar and molecular measures when assessing the effects of drugs on reinforced variability and repetition. In addition, the shifts in the relative frequency distribution of response sequences suggest that d-amphetamine produced decrements in repeat performance by decreasing discriminative control within response sequences, whereas ethanol decreased repeat performance by decreasing discriminability between components as well as discriminative control within response sequences.     

Conditioning of two-response patterns of key pecking in pigeons

On discrete trials, two response keys were made available to hungry pigeons and food reinforcement depended on the order in which the required two key pecks occurred. In different phases, only one of the four possible two-peck sequences (left-left, left-right, right-left, and right-right) produced food reinforcement. In each case, the pigeons learned to perform the correct two-peck sequence more often than the incorrect sequences. Furthermore, the course of differentiation mastery indicated that both reinforcement history and response-reinforcer contiguity influenced performance. These results reveal that response patterns comprising two instances of the same response left-left and right-right) or instances of two different responses (left-right and right-left) may function as operants, thereby extending the generality of conditioning principles from discrete responses to structured sequences of behavior. These and other results are discussed in terms of contiguity-based and memory-based models of learning.     

Discrimination and differentiation of response number in stimulus directed pecking of pigeons.

In Experiment 1, autoshaping trials terminated with food only if pigeons emitted more than a target number of responses during a trial in one condition and fewer than a target number in another. The median number of responses per trial shifted in accordance wtih the requirements. The responding of yoked-control birds that received response-independent reinforcers did not vary with the response requirements. In Experiment 2, the number of responses in autoshaping trial became the discriminative stimulus for reinforcement in the second component of a chained schedule. In one condition, responding was reinforced only if the number of responses in the first component was above a target value; in the other condition, responding was reinforced only if the number was below the target value. The distribution of the first-component response numbers did not shift systematically between discrimination conditions, but response rates in the second component indicated that the number of responses in the autoshaping trial was a discriminable property behavior.     

Removal of an obstacle: Problem-solving behavior in pigeons

The importance of a subject's personal history in the solution of an obstruction problem was demonstrated with pigeons. Four birds were trained to peck a key located outside the chamber by poking their heads through an opening in a screen. During tests, a white block was placed in front of the opening, so that it was not possible to peck the key without removing the block. All birds failed to remove the block. However, all birds that were subsequently trained to push the white block around the chamber in the absence of the key and a few of the birds trained similarly but with a black block solved the problem by pushing the block aside and pecking the key. One bird showed the abrupt descent in the learning curve that has been considered a characteristic of “insightful” problem solving. All birds maintained their successful performance after a 1-month interval with no intervening tests.     

Conditioning of within-trial patterns of key pecking in pigeons

The possibility of conditioning systematic patterns of responding during brief discrete trials was studied by requiring hungry pigeons to key peck and then pause or to pause and then key peck in order to gain access to food. These schedules were highly effective in promoting decelerated and accelerated rates of responding, respectively, within individual trials; indeed, performance was quite similar to that observed when explicit external stimuli were correlated with “peck” and “pause” portions of the daily trials. Finally, schedules of reinforcement that did not selectively reinforce peck-pause or pause-peck patterns neither generated these patterns nor maintained them at the previous high levels. The results, therefore, confirm Shimp's (1976) proposal that organized groupings of discrete responses may function as operants—even in the absence of strict response-reinforcer contiguity.     

The development of emergent differential sample behavior in pigeons

Three experiments attempted to replicate Manabe, Kawashima, and Staddon's (1995) finding of emergent differential sample behavior in budgerigars that has been interpreted as evidence of functional equivalence class formation. In Experiments 1 and 2, pigeons initially learned two-sample/ two-alternative matching to sample in which comparison presentation was contingent on pecking one sample on a differential-reinforcement-of-low-rate (DRL) schedule and the other on a fixed-ratio (FR) schedule. Later, two new samples were added to the task. Comparison presentation on these trials occurred after the first sample peck following a predetermined interval (Experiment 1) or after completion of either the DRL or FR requirement, whichever occurred first (Experiment 2). Experiment 1 found no evidence for emergent spaced versus rapid responding to the new samples as they established conditional control over the familiar choices. By contrast, differential responding did emerge for some pigeons in Experiment 2, with responding to each new sample coinciding with the pattern explicitly conditioned to the original sample occasioning the same comparison choice. This emergent effect, however, disappeared for most pigeons with continued training. Experiment 3 systematically replicated Experiment 2 using differential peck location as the sample behavior. Differential location pecking emerged to the new samples for most pigeons and remained intact throughout training. Our findings demonstrate a viable pigeon analogue to the budgerigar emergent calling paradigm and are discussed in terms of equivalence- and non-equivalence-based processes.     

Delayed temporal discrimination in pigeons: A comparison of two procedures

A within-subjects comparison was made of pigeons' performance on two temporal discrimination procedures that were signaled by differently colored keylight samples. During stimulus trials, a peck on the key displaying a slanted line was reinforced following short keylight samples, and a peck on the key displaying a horizontal line was reinforced following long keylight samples, regardless of the location of the stimuli on those two choice keys. During position trials, a peck on the left key was reinforced following short keylight samples and a peck on the right key was reinforced following long keylight samples, regardless of which line stimulus appeared on the correct key. Thus, on stimulus trials, the correct choice key could not be discriminated prior to the presentation of the test stimuli, whereas on position trials, the correct choice key could be discriminated during the presentation of the sample stimulus. During Phase 1, with a 0-s delay between sample and choice stimuli, discrimination learning was faster on position trials than on stimulus trials for all 4 birds. During Phase 2, 0-, 0.5-, and 1.0-s delays produced differential loss of stimulus control under the two tasks for 2 birds. Response patterns during the delay intervals provided some evidence for differential mediation of the two delayed discriminations. These between-task differences suggest that the same processes may not mediate performance in each.     

The operant conditioning of response variability: Free-operant versus discrete-response procedures

The operant conditioning of response variability under free-operant and discrete-response procedures was investigated. Two pigeons received food only if their pattern of four pecks on two response keys differed from the patterns emitted on the two immediately preceding trials. Under the free-operant procedure, the keys remained illuminated and operative throughout each trial. There was little variability in the response patterns that resulted, and the pigeons received fewer than one third of the available reinforcers. Under the discrete-response procedure, a brief timeout period followed each response. Variability increased under this procedure, and the pigeons obtained three fourths of the available reinforcers. Previous successes and failures to produce response variability may have been due to the use or failure to use, respectively, a discrete-response procedure. Respondent effects inherent in the free-operant procedure may encourage the development of response stereotypy and, in turn, prevent the development of response variability.     

Factors affecting conditional discrimination learning by pigeons

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

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.     

Transfer of oddity-from-sample performance in pigeons

Four pigeons were trained on a modified three-key oddity-from-sample task in which an observing response to the sample (center-key) stimulus lighted a single comparison (side-key) stimulus. If the comparison stimulus was different from the sample stimulus, a single peck to the lighted comparison was reinforced. If the comparison and sample stimuli were identical, the pigeons had to refrain from pecking the comparison for 4.6 seconds to terminate the matching comparison and to produce immediately a nonmatching comparison on the remaining side key. Each peck to the matching comparison reset the 4.6-second delay interval. Three hues were used during acquisition. During tests for transfer of the oddity performance, two novel hues were substituted either individually or together for one or two of the original training hues. For three birds, latencies to novel nonmatching hues were identical to baseline nonmatching latencies. Latencies to novel matching hues were shorter than baseline matching latencies but were consistently longer than novel nonmatching latencies. These transfer data demonstrate that the pigeons learned the oddity concept.     

Time-place learning by pigeons, Columba livia

In each of two experiments, 2 pigeons received discrimination training in which food reinforcement for key pecking was conditional upon both spatial and temporal cues. In Experiment 1, food was available for periods of 30 s at each of three locations (pecking keys) during trials that lasted 90 s. In Experiment 2, food was available for periods of 15 min at each of four locations (pecking keys) during a 60-min trial. In both experiments, pigeons' key pecking was jointly controlled by the spatial and temporal cues. These data, and other recent experiments, suggest that animals learn relationships between temporal and spatial cues that predict stable patterns of food availability.     

Stimulus stringing by pigeons

Pigeons were trained to peck one, two, three, and then four colors in a predetermined sequence from a five-key array where, over trials, each color appeared equally often in each position of the array. Incorrect pecks resulted in a buzzer and trial termination, with the same array presented for the next trial. Correct pecks produced feedback and correct strings could produce food. All subjects performed at a high level of accuracy with no difference at asymptote between a continuous and a mixed spectral sequence as the required order. Transfer to a new set of arrays had little effect on accuracy. Errors forward in the sequence had the highest probability, followed by repeat errors, backward errors, and dark-key errors. Some arrays had a higher level of accuracy than others but a corresponding systematic variable could not be identified.     

Nonstable concurrent choice in pigeons

Six pigeons were trained on concurrent variable-interval schedules in which the arranged reinforcer ratios changed from session to session according to a 31-step pseudorandom binary sequence. This procedure allows a quantitative analysis of the degree to which performance in an experimental session is affected by conditions in previous sessions. Two experiments were carried out. In each, the size of the reinforcer ratios arranged between the two concurrent schedules was varied between 31-step conditions. In Experiment 1, the concurrent schedules were arranged independently, and in Experiment 2 they were arranged nonindependently. An extended form of the generalized matching law described the relative contribution of past and present events to present-session behavior. Total performance in sessions was mostly determined by the reinforcer ratio in that session and partially by reinforcers that had been obtained in previous sessions. However, the initial exposure to the random sequence produced a lower sensitivity to current-session reinforcers but no difference in overall sensitivity to reinforcement. There was no evidence that the size of the reinforcer ratios available on the concurrent schedules affected either overall sensitivity to reinforcement or the sensitivity to reinforcement in the current session. There was also no evidence of any different performance between independent and nonindependent scheduling. Because of these invariances, this experiment validates the use of the pseudorandom sequence for the fast determination of sensitivity to reinforcement.     

Schedule interactions involving punishment with pigeons and humans

The principal aim of the present experiments was to assess whether punishment increased or decreased the rate of unpunished behavior (contrast and induction, respectively) for which reinforcement rate was held constant, with physical and nonphysical punishers (electric shock and response cost), pigeon and human subjects, signaled and unsignaled components (multiple and mixed schedules), and the presence or absence of a blackout period between components. Across the three experiments there were 20 punishment conditions. Induction was found in nine of those, less consistent response-rate reduction was found in three, contrast was found in four, and in four there was no change in responding from conditions without punishment. Contrast occurred consistently only with multiple schedules during the first exposure to electric-shock punishment. Induction and no change, however, were found with every combination of the independent variables studied. Four conclusions regarding the interactions between punished and unpunished responding emerged from the present results: (a) Both contrast and induction occurred with the reinforcement rate held constant and a blackout between components, (b) induction was more common than contrast, (c) contrast occurred only in the presence of a stimulus different from that correlated with the punisher, and (d) contrast diminished with prolonged exposure to punishment. None of the current theoretical accounts of punishment contrast can explain the present results.     

Tests of behavior momentum in simple and multiple schedules with rats and pigeons.

Four experiments examined the relationship between rate of reinforcement and resistance to change in rats' and pigeons' responses under simple and multiple schedules of reinforcement. In Experiment 1, 28 rats responded under either simple fixed-ratio, variable-ratio, fixed-interval, or variable-interval schedules; in Experiment 2, 3 pigeons responded under simple fixed-ratio schedules. Under each schedule, rate of reinforcement varied across four successive conditions. In Experiment 3, 14 rats responded under either a multiple fixed-ratio schedule or a multiple fixed-interval schedule, each with two components that differed in rate of reinforcement. In Experiment 4, 7 pigeons responded under either a multiple fixed-ratio or a multiple fixed-interval schedule, each with three components that also differed in rate of reinforcement. Under each condition of each experiment, resistance to change was studied by measuring schedule-controlled performance under conditions with prefeeding, response-independent food during the schedule or during timeouts that separated components of the multiple schedules, and by measuring behavior under extinction. There were no consistent differences between rats and pigeons. There was no direct relationship between rates of reinforcement and resistance to change when rates of reinforcement varied across successive conditions in the simple schedules. By comparison, in the multiple schedules there was a direct relationship between rates of reinforcement and resistance to change during most tests of resistance to change. The major exception was delivering response-independent food during the schedule; this disrupted responding, but there was no direct relationship between rates of reinforcement and resistance to change in simple- or multiple-schedule contexts. The data suggest that rate of reinforcement determines resistance to change in multiple schedules, but that this relationship does not hold under simple schedules.     

Resistance to change and preference for variable versus fixed response sequences

In Experiment 1, 4 pigeons were trained on a multiple chain schedule in which the initial link was a variable-interval (VI) 20-s schedule signalled by a red or green center key, and terminal links required four responses made to the left (L) and/or right (R) keys. In the REPEAT component, signalled by red keylights, only LRLR terminal-link response sequences were reinforced, while in the VARY component, signalled by green keylights, terminal-link response sequences were reinforced if they satisfied a variability criterion. The reinforcer rate for both components was equated by adjusting the reinforcer probability for correct REPEAT sequences across sessions. Results showed that initial- and terminal-link responding in the VARY component was generally more resistant to prefeeding, extinction, and response-independent food than responding in the REPEAT component. In Experiment 2, the REPEAT and VARY contingencies were arranged as terminal links of a concurrent chain and the relative reinforcer rate was manipulated across conditions. For all pigeons, initial-link response allocation was biased toward the alternative associated with the VARY terminal link. These results replicate previous reports that operant variation is more resistant to change than operant repetition (Doughty & Lattal, 2001), and show that variation is preferred to repetition with reinforcer-related variables controlled. Behavioral momentum theory (Nevin & Grace, 2000) predicts the covariation of preference and resistance to change in Experiments 1 and 2, but does not explain why these aspects of behavior should depend on contingencies that require repetition or variation.     

Token reinforcement, choice, and self-control in pigeons.

Pigeons were exposed to self-control procedures that involved illumination of light-emitting diodes (LEDs) as a form of token reinforcement. In a discrete-trials arrangement, subjects chose between one and three LEDs; each LED was exchangeable for 2-s access to food during distinct posttrial exchange periods. In Experiment 1, subjects generally preferred the immediate presentation of a single LED over the delayed presentation of three LEDs, but differences in the delay to the exchange period between the two options prevented a clear assessment of the relative influence of LED delay and exchange-period delay as determinants of choice. In Experiment 2, in which delays to the exchange period from either alternative were equal in most conditions, all subjects preferred the delayed three LEDs more often than in Experiment-1. In Experiment 3, subjects preferred the option that resulted in a greater amount of food more often if the choices also produced LEDs than if they did not. In Experiment 4, preference for the delayed three LEDs was obtained when delays to the exchange period were equal, but reversed in favor of an immediate single LED when the latter choice also resulted in quicker access to exchange periods. The overall pattern of results suggests that (a) delay to the exchange period is a more critical determinant of choice than is delay to token presentation; (b) tokens may function as conditioned reinforcers, although their discriminative properties may be responsible for the self-control that occurs under token reinforcer arrangements; and (c) previously reported differences in the self-control choices of humans and pigeons may have resulted at least in part from the procedural conventions of using token reinforcers with human subjects and food reinforcers with pigeon subjects.     

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.