Advertisement

Biological Cybernetics

, Volume 71, Issue 6, pp 531–536 | Cite as

Processing of hierarchic stimulus structures has advantages in humans and animals

  • Martina Siemann
  • Juan D. Delius
Article

Abstract

Carmesin and Schwegler (1994) have determined theoretically that a linear hierarchical stimulus structure can be encoded by a parallel network of minimal complexity. The experiments reported here compare the efficiency with which humans and pigeons process sets of stimulus pairs embodying different inequality structures. Groups of subjects of each species were taught to discriminate all 10 pairwise combinations of 5 stimuli with an operant conditioning method. For one group, the reward/punishment allocations within the pairs agreed with a linear hierarchy. For a second and third group, the reinforcement allocations of one or three, respectively, of the stimulus pairs deviated from such ordering. The time it took the subjects to learn the tasks as well as the final choice latencies and/or error rates increased with the number of deviating inequalities. The results agree with the assumption that both humans and pigeons encode stimulus inequality structures with parallel processing neural networks rather than with a sequentially processing algorithm.

Keywords

Neural Network Error Rate Parallel Processing Operant Conditioning Stimulus Pair 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Archer J (1992) Ethology and human development. Harvester Wheatsheaf, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. Carmesin HO, Schwegler H (1994) Parallel versus sequential processing of relational stimulus structures. Biol Cybern 71:523–529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Couvillon PA, Bitterman ME (1992) A conventional conditioning analysis of “transitive inference” in pigeons. J Exp Psychol [Anim Behav Proc] 18:308–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Fersen L von, Delius JD (1992) Schlußfolgerndes Denken bei Tauben. Spektr Wiss July: 18–22Google Scholar
  5. Fersen L von, Wynne CDL, Delius JD, Staddon JER (1991) Transitive inference formation in pigeons. J Exp Psychol [Anim Behav Proc] 17:334–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gellermann LW (1933) Chance orders of alternating stimuli in visual discrimination experiments. J Genet Psychol 42:206–208Google Scholar
  7. Henley N, Horsfall R, De Soto C (1969) Goodness of figure and social structure. Psychol Rev 76:194–204Google Scholar
  8. Herrnstein RJ (1990) Levels of stimulus control: a functional approach. Cognition 37:133–166CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Luce DR (1959) Individual choice behavior. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Medin DL, Smith EE (1984) Concepts and concept formation. Annu Rev Psychol 35:113–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Potts GR (1972) Information strategies used in the encoding of linear orderings. J Verbal Learn Behav 103:431–439Google Scholar
  12. Rescorla RA, Wagner AR (1972) A theory of Pavlovian conditioning: variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and nonreinforcement. In: Black AH, Prokasy WF (eds) Classical conditioning II: current research and theory. Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York, pp 64–99Google Scholar
  13. Riley CA (1976) The representation of comparative relations and the transitive inference task. J Exp Child Psychol 22:1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Siemann M (1993a) Trnsitive inferences, experimentelle Untersuchung einer kognitiven Leistung. Dissertation, University of KonstanzGoogle Scholar
  15. Siemann M (1993b) Transitive inferences in pigeons and humans. In: Elsner N, Heisenberg M (eds) Gene, brain, behavior. Thieme, Stuttgart, p 857Google Scholar
  16. Siemann M, Delius JD (1993) Implicit deductive responding in humans. Naturwissenschaft 80:364–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Trabasso T, Riley CA (1975) The construction and use of representation involving linear order. In: Solso RL (ed) Information processing and cognition. The Loyola Symposium. Erlbaum, New York, pp 381–410Google Scholar
  18. Terrace HS (1987) Chunking by a pigeon in a serial learning task. Nature 325:149–151CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Werner U, Köppl U, Delius JD (1992) Transitive Inferenz bei nichtverbaler Aufgabenstellung. Z Exp Angew Psychol 19:662–683Google Scholar
  20. Wickelgren WA (1979) Cognitive psychology. Prentice Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  21. Wynne CDL, Fersen L von, Staddon JER (1992) Pigeons' transitive inferences are the outcome of elementary conditioning principles: a response. J Exp Psychol [Anim Behav Proc] 18:313–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Xia L, Wynne CDL, Münchow-Pohl F von, Delius JD (1991) Psychobasic: a Basic dialect for the control of psychological experiments with the Commodore-64 and Dela interfacing. Behav Res Method Instr Comp 23:72–76Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Martina Siemann
    • 1
  • Juan D. Delius
    • 1
  1. 1.Allgemeine PsychologieUniversität KonstanzKonstanzGermany

Personalised recommendations