Reinforcement Concordance Induces and Maintains Stimulus Associations in Pigeons
In a first experiment. pigeons were trained to discriminate two pairs of simultaneously presented stimuli. A+ C− and B+ D−. Both pairs were successively and repeatedly presented in every session. After the birds learned the two discriminations, both tasks were synchronously reversed (i.e., A− C+ and B− D+) several times. When reversal performance had stabilized, test reversal sessions were run in which one discrimination (the “leader” task, e.g., A+ C−) was presented for several trials before the second one (the “trailer” task, e.g., B+ C−) was introduced. The animals acquired the trailing task somewhat faster than the leading task, suggesting that associations A ↔ B and C ↔ D that had built up between the stimuli forming the two discrimination pairs were supporting a reversal transfer. A second experiment showed that further reversal experience with a discrimination where the constituent stimuli were presented compounded (AB+Cd− or Ab−Cd+) as well as singly, enhanced the transfer between leading and trailing tasks in subsequent test sessions. A third experiment showed that the same pigeons learned half reversals involving only one discrimination (for example by switching from A+ B−, C+ D− to A− B+, C+ D−) more slowly than full reversals involving both discriminations. These results support the hypothesis that pigeons can associate stimuli that have concordant reinforcement histories. When a reinforcement allocation change causes a change in responding to one stimulus of such an association, pigeons tend to generalize that response change to the other stimulus.
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- AMELING, M. (1987). Gruppenzugehörigkeit von visuellen Reizen als Diskriminationsgrundlage bei Tauben (Group-belongingness of stimuli as a discriminative basis in pigeons). Diplom thesis, Bochum University.Google Scholar
- CHANNEL, S., & HALL, G. (1981). Facilitation and retardation of discrimination learning after exposure to the stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 7, 437–446.Google Scholar
- GELLERMANN, L. W. (1933). Chance orders of alternating stimuli in visual discrimination experiments. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 42, 206–208.Google Scholar
- KENDLER, H. H., & KENDLER, T. S. (1968). Mediation and conceptual behavior. In K. W. Spence & J. T. Spence (Eds.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 2, pp. 197–244). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
- LEA S. E. G. (1984). In what sense do pigeons learn concepts? In H. L. Roitblat, T. G. Bever, & H. S. Terrace (Eds.), Animal cognition (pp. 263–276). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- LEA, S. E. G., RYAN C. M. E., & KIRBY, R. M. (1990). Instances to category generalization following pigeons’ learning of an artificial concept discrimination. Internal Report, Animal Psychology Research Group, Department of Psychology, University of Exeter, 90/1, 1–38.Google Scholar
- NAKAGAWA, E. (1986). Overtraining, extinction and shift learning in a concurrent discrimination in rats. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 38B, 313–326.Google Scholar
- NAKAGAWA, E. (1992). Effects of overtraining on reversal learning by rats in concurrent and single discriminations. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 44B, 37–56.Google Scholar
- RESCORLA, R. A. (1981). Simultaneous associations. In P. Harzern & M. D. Zeiler (Eds.), Advances in analysis of behavior, Vol. 2: Predictability, correlation and contiguity (pp. 47–80). Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
- SIEGEL, S., & CASTELLAN, N. J. (1988). Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences. New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
- VAUGHAN, W. (1988). Formation of equivalence sets in pigeons. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Process, 14, 36–42.Google Scholar
- ZENTALL, T. R., STEIRN, J. N., SHERBOURNE, L M., & URCUIOLI, P. J. (1991). Common coding in pigeons assessed through partial versus total reversals of many-to-one conditional and simple discriminations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 17, 194–201.Google Scholar