A reason for theoretical terms

The presence of nonobservational vocabulary is shown to be necessary for wide application of a conservative principle of theory revision.Support for this research was provided by the Office of Naval Research under contract No. N00014-87-K-0401. We thank Daniel Andler and Clark Glymour for helpful discussion.     

Eyewitness testimony and memory distortion

Abstract: Do memories change as we acquire new information? Recent research on memory distortion using implicit tests along with research using confidence is reviewed and new studies are presented. Two new studies asked misinformed subjects to provide reasons for their answers. In each study 15% to 27% of subjects said they remembered seeing items they had only read about. In another study subjects were asked to identify the source of misleading items they had seen in slides or read in misleading questions. Subjects were more likely to say they had seen in slides something they read about in the questions than they were to confuse information from two nearly identical sets of slides. Recent work shows that, not only is it possible to distort memory for events, it is possible to implant an entire memory for something that never happened. The evidence is now clear that we can become mentally tricked into making large as well as small changes in the way we recall the past.     

Discrimination of methadone and cocaine by pigeons without explicit discrimination training.

Pigeons were trained to peck a key on a variable-interval 2-min schedule of food reinforcement. Prior to each session, either 2.0 mg/kg methadone (n = 3), 3.0 mg/kg cocaine (n = 4), or 5.6 mg/kg cocaine (n = 2) was administered. When each pigeon's rate of pecking was stable, a range of doses of the training drug and saline were administered prior to 20-min extinction sessions separated by at least four training sessions. Rate of pecking during these extinction tests was generally an increasing function of dose, with the lowest rates obtained following saline and low doses and the highest rates obtained following doses near the training doses. Dose functions from pigeons trained with 5.6 mg/kg cocaine were steeper than those from pigeons trained with 3.0 mg/kg cocaine. Pigeons trained with methadone or 3.0 mg/kg cocaine were then given discrimination training, in which food reinforcement followed drug administration and 20-min extinction sessions followed saline administration. Rates of pecking under these conditions quickly diverged until near-zero rates were obtained following saline and high rates were obtained following drug. Discrimination training steepened dose functions for the training drugs, and the effects of several other substituted drugs depended on the pharmacology of the training drug. The pigeons trained with 5.6 mg/kg cocaine were tested with d-amphetamine, methadone, and morphine prior to discrimination training. d-Amphetamine increased rates dose dependently, and methadone and morphine did not. The results suggest that discriminative control by methadone and cocaine was established without explicit discrimination training.     

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.