The role of the response-reinforcer contingency in negative automaintenance

When a response key is briefly illuminated before a grain reinforcer is presented, key pecking is reliably developed and maintained in pigeons, even if pecking prevents reinforcement (negative automaintenance). This experiment demonstrated that pigeons are sensitive to a negative response-reinforcer contingency, even though it does not eliminate responding. Within individual pigeons, two kinds of trials were compared: red key trials, in which reinforcement was negatively contingent on responding, and white key trials, in which reinforcement was unrelated to responding. Reinforcement frequency in non-contingent trials was yoked to the obtained reinforcement frequency in negatively contingent trials. All eight pigeons pecked substantially more on the non-contingent key than on the negative key, and preferred the non-contingent key to the negative key on occasional “choice” trials where both were presented together. When the stimuli correlated with the two conditions were reversed, the pigeons' behavior also shifted. These response differences are taken as evidence that pigeons are sensitive to the negative response-reinforcer contingency.     

Collateral responding during differential reinforcement of low rates

Two pigeons were trained to peck either of two response keys for food, under two different variable-interval schedules. When responding stabilized, the schedule on the left key (reinforcement-key) was changed to a differential-reinforcement-of-low-rates schedule, and responses on the right key (extinction-key) were no longer reinforced. The mean interresponse time of responses on the reinforcement-key approximated the temporal requirement of the reinforcement schedule on that key. Collateral responding on the extinction-key was maintained by one of the birds. A “run” of these collateral responses was defined as a sequence of responses on the extinction-key occurring between two responses on the reinforcement-key. For this one bird, collateral behavior, measured by mean time per run and mean number of responses per run, was an increasing function of the temporal requirements of the reinforcement schedule on the reinforcement key, and it was strongly positively correlated with the mean interresponse time of responses on the reinforcement-key. However, from an analysis of the results, the collateral behavior did not appear to have mediated the temporal spacing of responses on the reinforcement-key.     

Collateral behavior of the pigeon during conditioned suppression of key pecking

Ethological recording procedures measured collateral behavior in pigeons whose key-pecking performance was suppressed during a tone that ended with unavoidable electric shock. Independent recordings of gross behavior were made by two observers throughout 60-sec intervals immediately before, during, and after tone presentation. Results indicated significant reductions in the frequency of collateral movements and an increase in the time between successive movements during tone presentations. These effects were observed in all subjects, despite differences in the sequential patterns of behavior. Only partial recovery of the behavior evidenced before tone presentation was found during a 60-sec interval following shock. It was concluded that conditioned suppression procedures caused the bird to “freeze” during tone presentation and in this fashion produced a general inhibitory effect on ongoing overt activity, including key pecking.     

The effect of physical restraint on behavior under the differential-reinforcement-of-low-rate schedule

Previous studies have identified and manipulated collateral behavior to assess the effect of collateral behavior on performance under the differential-reinforcement-of-low-rate (DRL) schedule. However, conclusions could not be applied to subjects not observed to engage in collateral behavior. The present study used a technique that prevented the occurrence of the types of collateral behavior typically observed in the pigeon. This technique did not require the identification of collateral behavior in the subjects. The exclusion of the types of collateral behavior typically observed in pigeons resulted in higher response rates and lower reinforcement rates under large DRL values but had no effect at lower DRL values. It was concluded that collateral behavior is necessary for low response rates and high reinforcement rates under large DRL values.     

Development of complex, stereotyped behavior in pigeons

A pigeon's peck on one key moved a light down one position in a 5×5 matrix of lights, while a peck on another key moved the light across one position. Reinforcement depended upon the occurrence of four pecks on each key (moving the matrix light from the top left to the bottom right), and a fifth peck on either key ended a trial without food. Though there were 70 different sequences that led to reinforcement, each of 12 pigeons developed a particular, stereotyped sequence which dominated its behavior (Experiment 1). Extinction produced substantial increases in sequence variability (Experiment 2). Removal of the matrix cues disrupted performance, though it partially recovered with extended training (Experiment 3). The pigeons did not master a contingency which required a different sequence on the current trial than on the previous one (Experiment 4), though they were able to learn to emit sequences which began with either left-left or left-right response patterns (Experiment 5). The experiments suggest that contingencies of reinforcement may contribute to the creation of complex units of behavior, and that stereotypy may be a likely consequence of contingent reinforcement.     

A note on chaining and temporal discrimination

Four pigeons were exposed to a two-key DRL procedure. At the start of a trial, key A was illuminated. A response to the lighted key turned it off and simultaneously illuminated key B. Reinforcement was available for responses on key B which followed the initial key A response by more than 2 sec. In the course of exposure to these conditions, all birds acquired superstitious response chains on key A. The distribution of the number of responses on key A preceding a key B response and the distribution of intervals elapsing from the initial key A response to the key B response were of the same form. The suggestion is made that the superstitious responding on key A served to mediate the required delay interval. However, when intervals between successive key A responses were recorded for one subject, they were found to be regularly spaced in time. Thus, the problem remains of how this behavior is itself timed.     

Incentive learning and the motivational control of instrumental performance

Hungry rats were trained to press a lever and pull a chain concurrently, with one action being reinforced with a sucrose solution and the other with food pellets. In addition, in the first two experiments all animals experienced non-contingent presentations of the two incentives in the absence of the operant manipulanda while either thirsty or hungry and either before (Experiment 1A) or after (Experiment 1B) the instrumental training. When lever pressing was assessed subsequently in extinction under thirst, the animals pressed at a relatively high rate only if (1) this action had been reinforced with the sucrose solution rather than the food pellets during training and (2) they had received the non-contingent presentations of the sucrose solution and food pellets on days on which they were thirsty rather than hungry. A third experiment demonstrated that non-contingent exposure to the sucrose solution alone, but not to water under thirst was sufficient to bring about this type of motivational control of instrumental performance.     

Matching and oddity learning in the pigeon: Transfer effects and the absence of relational learning

Three experiments examined the extent to which pigeons trained on a matching or oddity discrimination with one pair of colours showed transfer when tested on a new matching or oddity discrimination with a new pair of colours. Experiment 1 examined the effects of key spacing and a delay procedure and replicated previous reports that in the transfer stage subjects given the same kind of problem (Non-shift condition) in general learn more rapidly than those given the opposite problem (Shift condition). However, this difference appeared only when pigeons given matching in both training and transfer stages were compared to those shifted from oddity to matching; it did not appear in birds transferred to oddity. Transfer was not significantly affected by key spacing or by the delay.

Experiments 2 and 3 examined transfer from a non-relational conditional discrimination based on one set of colours to a subsequent matching or oddity task based on two new colours. Both a comparison between the results of Experiment 1 and 2 and the corresponding within-experiment comparison from Experiment 3 showed that transfer from conditional training to matching was as great as from prior training on matching, while prior training on oddity produced negative transfer on shift to matching. It was suggested that this negative transfer occurs because pigeons trained on oddity have not learned to override an initial bias towards the odd stimulus in an array. Whatever the correct explanation; the present results provide no support for the claim that pigeons solve matching or oddity discriminations relationally.     

Effects of spacing repetitions on children's memory

Two experiments examined the effect of spacing repetitions within a word list on the free recall performance of elementary school children. In the first experiment, spacing repetitions facilitated recall, and the function relating recall of repeated items to the spacing between repetitions was the same throughout the age range investigated (first, third, and sixth graders). But, the function for these elementary school children reached asymptote at a much shorter spacing than the function typically reported for adults. The second experiment was designed to test an encoding variability explanation of spaced-repetition effects in elementary school children. Results for both third- and sixth-grade children were consistent with the hypothesis that differential encoding of repetitions facilitates performance and that spaced repetitions are remembered better because they are more likely to be differentially encoded. A theoretical framework was discussed that may be able to encompass both these results and another finding in the literature which indicates that differential encoding can sometimes impair rather than facilitate children's memory performance.     

The influence of "preparedness" on autoshaping, schedule performance, and choice.

Two groups of experimentally naive pigeons were exposed to an autoshaping procedure in which the response key was mounted on the wall (the conventional location) or on the floor of the chamber. In two experiments, subjects readily responded to the wall key, but floor-key subjects required shaping. A subsequent experiment compared performance of wall- and floor-key groups on an ascending series of fixed-ratio schedule values, resistance to extinction, differential reinforcement of other behavior, and reversal of key assignment. Each experiment was followed by several sessions of fixed-ratio training; the performance of the wall- and floor-key groups was almost identical throughout. In the final experiment, a fixed-ratio requirement could be completed on either or both keys. Birds initially chose the key on which they had responded during the preceding (reversal of key assignment) experiment. However, within a few sessions both groups showed almost exclusive preference for the floor key. Preference for a key located on the floor may follow from the fact that pigeons are ground feeders and may thus be more "prepared" to peck the floor than to peck a wall. However, autoshaping, under the conditions prevailing here, occurred much more readily to the wall key, suggesting that pecking a vertical surface is more highly prepared. Difficulties in determining relative preparedness seem moot, however, given the lack of between-group differences in the intervening experiments. It is thus unlikely that schedule performances critically depend upon the specific operant response involved.     

Response rate under varying frequency of non-contingent reinforcement

Two White Carneaux hen pigeons were exposed to a 60-sec random-interval baseline procedure. Six different exteroceptive stimuli were successively correlated, within a single session, with blocks of 10 reinforcement presentations. Following this training, a non-contingent reinforcement procedure was instated with inter-reinforcement intervals of 5, 15, 30, 60, 120, and 240 sec. Within a single session, each non-contingent frequency was correlated with one of the previously presented discriminative stimuli. After an initial increase in the rate of responding as the result of a high density of non-contingent reinforcements, the rate declined as exposure to each non-contingent frequency was prolonged.     

Effects of d-amphetamine and chlordiazepoxide on spaced responding in pigeons

The effects of d-amphetamine and chlordiazepoxide were studied in pigeons on performance (1) under a schedule that reinforced responses on a key (food key) if they were more than 20 sec apart, (2) under the same schedule when responses also were required on a collateral key during the interresponse time on the food key, and (3) under the same schedule when responses were required on a collateral key during the interresponse time on the food key and collateral-key responses could produce a stimulus correlated with the availability of food. Under all three spaced-responding schedules, d-amphetamine and chlordiazepoxide at low dose levels slightly increased the frequency of short interresponse times on the food key for about half the birds, and either did not affect the interresponse time patterns of the other birds, or lengthened the durations slightly. At higher dose levels, d-amphetamine and chlordiazepoxide increased the frequency of long interresponse times or abolished responding in all birds. Changes in the pattern of interresponse times on the food key did not seem to depend on changes in the rate or pattern of collateral-key responses.     

Examining the lag effect under incidental encoding: Contributions of semantic priming and reminding

Memory is better when repeated learning events are spaced than when they are massed (spacing effect), as well as when material is processed semantically than when it is processed graphemically (levels-of-processing effect). Examination of the relationship between levels of processing and spacing for both deeply and shallowly encoded items has shown a spacing effect for items processed deeply, but not shallowly. A semantic priming account of spacing was proposed to explain the interaction between levels of processing and spacing on memory. The current study manipulated levels of processing and the amount of spacing (lag) that occurred between repetitions of items that were incidentally encoded. Results from Experiments 1A and 1B revealed lag effects in test performance when items were deeply and shallowly encoded. Although these findings are inconsistent with a semantic priming account, they can be interpreted within a reminding account, which is explored in Experiment 2. Results from the second experiment indicate that bringing reminding under conscious control benefited items that were presented at a long lag but not at a shorter lag. Together, this study provides evidence that is difficult to accommodate with a semantic priming account of spacing and instead provides additional support for a reminding account suggesting that automatic and controlled processes may both underlie the reminding process.     

Further observations on overt “mediating” behavior and the discrimination of time

When the lever-pressing behavior of five rats was maintained by a DRL schedule (reinforcement was scheduled only when a specified waiting time between successive responses was exceeded), collateral behavior developed that apparently served a mediating function. In two cases this behavior did not arise until the experimental environment included pieces of wood that the rats started to nibble. When collateral behavior first appeared, it was always accompanied by an increase in responses spaced far enough apart to earn reinforcement. If collateral behavior was prevented, the number of reinforced responses always decreased. Extinction of lever pressing extinguished the collateral behavior. Adding a limited-hold contingency to the schedule did not extinguish collateral behavior. It appears that the rat can better space its responses appropriately when concurrently performing some overt collateral activity. The amount of this activity apparently comes to serve as a discriminative stimulus. To assume the existence of internal events that serve as discriminative stimuli in temporal discriminations is, at least under some circumstances, unnecessary.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Pigeons play the percentages: computation of probability in a bird

The ability to compute probability, previously shown in nonverbal infants, apes, and monkeys, was examined in three experiments with pigeons. After responding to individually presented keys in an operant chamber that delivered reinforcement with varying probabilities, pigeons chose between these keys on probe trials. Pigeons strongly preferred a 75% reinforced key over a 25% reinforced key, even when the total number of reinforcers obtained on each key was equated. When both keys delivered 50% reinforcement, pigeons showed indifference between them, even though three times more reinforcers were obtained on one key than on the other. It is suggested that computation of probability may be common to many classes of animals and may be driven by the need to forage successfully for nutritional food items, mates, and areas with a low density of predators.     

Does mediator use contribute to the spacing effect for cued recall? Critical tests of the mediator hypothesis

When study is spaced across sessions (versus massed within a single session), final performance is greater after spacing. This spacing effect may have multiple causes, and according to the mediator hypothesis, part of the effect can be explained by the use of mediator-based strategies. This hypothesis proposes that when study is spaced across sessions, rather than massed within a session, more mediators will be generated that are longer lasting and hence more mediators will be available to support criterion recall. In two experiments, participants were randomly assigned to study paired associates using either a spaced or massed schedule. They reported strategy use for each item during study trials and during the final test. Consistent with the mediator hypothesis, participants who had spaced (as compared to massed) practice reported using more mediators on the final test. This use of effective mediators also statistically accounted for some – but not all of – the spacing effect on final performance.     

Pigeons perform poorly on a midsession reversal task without rigid temporal regularity

Animals make surprising anticipatory and perseverative errors when faced with a midsession reversal of reinforcer contingencies on a choice task with highly predictable stimulus–time relationships. In the current study, we asked whether pigeons would anticipate changes in reinforcement when the reinforcer contingencies for each stimulus were not fixed in time. We compared the responses of pigeons on a simultaneous choice task when the initially correct stimulus was randomized or alternated across sessions. Pigeons showed more errors overall compared with the typical results of a standard midsession reversal procedure, and they did not show the typical anticipatory errors prior to the contingency reversal. Probe tests that manipulated the spacing between trials also suggested that timing of the session exerted little control of pigeons’ behavior. The temporal structure of the experimental session thus appears to be an important determinant for animals’ use of time in midsession reversal procedures.