Abstract
Four experiments were performed to explore modulatory transfer after serial feature-ambiguous (F-A) discrimination (X→A+, A−, X→B−, B+) in Pavlovian keypeck conditioning (autoshaping) with pigeons. Diffuse features were used in the first three experiments, and no modulatory transfer was found: (1) There was no modulatory transfer between two concurrently trained F-A tasks; (2) modulatory transfer to conditioned and then extinguished stimuli was not observed; and (3) responding to the targets (A and B) after their contingencies were reversed was not affected by presentation of their original feature stimulus (X). Transfer between two serial F-A tasks was obtained in the last experiment, in which keylights were used as features, but other evidence indicated that this was due to stimulus generalization between the features. Together, the results strongly suggest that specific target-food occasion setting or configural learning is the underlying mechanism of F-A discrimination.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bottjer, S. W., &Hearst, E. (1979). Food delivery as a conditional stimulus: Feature-learning and memory in pigeons.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,31, 189–207.
Bowers, R. L., &Richards, R. W. (1986). Generalization gradients following training on a symbolic matching-to-sample task.Animal Learning & Behavior,14, 51–56.
Fellows, B. J. (1967). Chance stimulus sequences for discrimination tasks.Psychological Bulletin,67, 87–92.
Good, M., &Macphail, E. M. (1994). The avian hippocampus and short-term memory for spatial and non-spatial information.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,47B, 293–317.
Holland, P. C. (1983). Occasion setting in Pavlovian feature positive discriminations. In M. L. Commons, R. J. Herrnstein, & A. R. Wagner (Eds.),Quantitative analyses of behavior: Vol. 4. Discrimination processes (pp. 183–206). New York: Ballinger.
Holland, P. C. (1985). The nature of conditioned inhibition in serial and simultaneous feature negative discriminations. In R. R. Miller & N. E. Spear (Eds.),Information processing in animals: Conditioned inhibition (pp. 267–297). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Holland, P. C. (1991). Transfer of control in ambiguous discriminations.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,17, 231–248.
Holland, P. C. (1992). Occasion setting in Pavlovian conditioning. In D. L. Medin (Ed.),The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 28, pp. 69–125). San Diego: Academic Press.
Holland, P. C. (1995). Transfer of occasion setting across stimulus and response in operant feature positive discriminations.Learning & Motivation,26, 239–263.
Holland, P. C., &Reeve, C. E. (1991). Acquisition and transfer of control by an ambiguous cue.Animal Learning & Behavior,19, 113–124.
Holland, P. C., &Ross, R. T. (1983). Savings test for associations between neutral stimuli.Animal Learning & Behavior,11, 83–90.
Hull, C. L. (1943).Principles of behavior: An introduction to behavior theory. New York: Appleton.
Kehoe, E. J., &Gormezano, I. (1980). Configuration and combination laws in conditioning with compound stimuli.Psychological Bulletin,87, 351–378.
Looney, T. A., Cohen, L. R., Brady, J. H., &Cohen, P. S. (1977). Conditional discrimination performance by pigeons on a response-independent procedure.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,27, 363–370.
Nakajima, S. (1992). The effect of temporal relationship of stimulus compound on ambiguous discrimination in the pigeon’s autoshaping.Behavioral Processes,27, 65–74.
Nakajima, S. (1994). Contextual control of Pavlovian bidirectional occasion setting.Behavioural Processes,32, 53–66.
Nakajima, S. (1995).Pavlov-gata joukenduke ni okeru kaisouteki sigeki seigyo [Hierarchical stimulus control in Pavlovian conditioning]. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Keio University, Tokyo.
Parker, B. K., Serdikoff, S. L., Kaminski, B. J., &Critchfield, T. S. (1991). Stimulus control of Pavlovian facilitation.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,55, 275–286.
Pearce, J. M. (1987). A model for stimulus generalization in Pavlovian conditioning.Psychological Review,94, 61–73.
Pearce, J. M. (1994). Similarity and discrimination: A selective review and a connectionist model.Psychological Review,101, 587–607.
Reilly, S., &Good, M. (1989). Hippocampal lesions and associative learning in the pigeon.Behavioral Neuroscience,103, 731–742.
Rescorla, R. A. (1979). Conditioned inhibition and extinction. In A. Dickinson & R. A. Boakes (Eds.), (pp. 83–110). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Rescorla, R. A. (1985). Conditioned inhibition and facilitation. In R. R. Miller & N. E. Spear (Eds.),Information processing in animals: Conditioned inhibition (pp. 299–326). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Rescorla, R. A. (1991). Separate reinforcement can enhance the effectiveness of modulators.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,17, 259–269.
Rescorla, R. A. (1993). Interference among modulators.Animal Learning & Behavior,21, 179–186.
Rescorla, R. A., Grau, J. W., &Durlach, P. J. (1985). Analysis of the unique cue in configural discriminations.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,11, 356–366.
Riley, D. A., &Roitblat, H. L. (1978). Selective attention and related cognitive processes in pigeons. In S. H. Hulse, H. Fowler, & W. K. Honig (Eds.),Cognitive processes in animal behavior (pp. 249–276). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Robbins, S. J. (1990). Mechanisms underlying spontaneous recovery in autoshaping.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,16, 235–249.
Ryan, T. A. (1960). Significance tests for multiple comparison of proportions, variances, and order statistics.Psychological Bulletin,57, 318–328.
Schmajuk, N. A., &Buhusi, C. V. (1997). Stimulus configuration, occasion setting, and the hippocampus.Behavioral Neuroscience,111, 1–24.
Swartzentruber, D. (1995). Modulatory mechanisms in Pavlovian conditioning.Animal Learning & Behavior,23, 123–143.
Swartzentruber, D., &Rescorla, R. A. (1994). Modulation of trained and extinguished stimuli by facilitators and inhibitors.Animal Learning & Behavior,22, 309–316.
Wagner, A. R., &Brandon, S. E. (1989). Evolution of a structured connectionist model of Pavlovian conditioning (AESOP). In S. B. Klein & R. R. Mowrer (Eds.),Contemporary learning theories: Pavlovian conditioning and the status of traditional learning theory (pp. 149–189). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Wagner, A. R., &Brandon, S. E. (1997, March).Occasion setting: Influences of conditioned emotional responses and configural cues. Paper presented at the conference “Occasion Setting: Theory and Data,” Duke University.
Zentall, T. R., &Hogan, D. E. (1976). Pigeons can learn identity or difference, or both.Science,191, 408–409.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This study was conducted with a support of NSF Grant IBN94-04676 to R. A. Rescorla, and the author was supported by Postdoctoral Fellowship for Research Abroad of the Japanese Society for Promotion of Science. I greatly appreciate Bob Rescorla’s allowing me to use his apparatus, subjects, and grant, and his intellectual support during this entire project. Thanks also go to him, K. Matthew Lattal, and Juan M. Rosas for comments on the manuscript. I am indebted to Matt Lattal and Peter J. Urcuioli for refinement of English expression. Portions of the data were presented at the conferenceOccasion setting: Theory and data, held at Duke University in March 1997.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Nakajima, S. Transfer testing after serial feature-ambiguous discrimination in Pavlovian keypeck conditioning. Animal Learning & Behavior 25, 413–426 (1997). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03209848
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03209848