Animal Cognition

, Volume 19, Issue 4, pp 855–859 | Cite as

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

  • Neil McMillan
  • Christopher B. Sturdy
  • Jeffrey M. Pisklak
  • Marcia L. Spetch
Short Communication

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Reversal learning Interval timing Choice Pigeons 

References

  1. Cook RG, Rosen HA (2010) Temporal control of internal states in pigeons. Psychon Bull Rev 17:915–922CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Daniel TA, Cook RG, Katz JS (2015) Temporal dynamics of task switching and abstract-concept learning in pigeons. Front Psychol 6:1334–1442CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. Dow SM, Lea SEG (1987) Sampling of schedule parameters by pigeons: tests of optimizing theory. Anim Behav 35:102–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dunlap AS, Stephens DW (2012) Tracking a changing environment: optimal sampling, adaptive memory and overnight effects. Behav Process 89:86–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Houston AI, Kacelnik A, McNamara J (1982) Some learning rules for acquiring information. In: McFarland DJ (ed) Functional ontogeny. Pitman, London, pp 140–191Google Scholar
  6. Krebs JR, Kacelnik A, Taylor P (1978) Test of optimal sampling by foraging great tits. Nature 275:27–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Mackintosh NJ, McGonigle B, Holgate V (1968) Factors underlying improvement in serial reversal learning. Can J Psychiatry 22:85–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. McMillan N, Roberts WA (2012) Pigeons make errors as a result of interval timing in a visual, but not visual-spatial, midsession reversal task. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 38:440–445CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. McMillan N, Kirk CR, Roberts WA (2014) Pigeon and rat performance in the midsession reversal procedure depends upon cue dimensionality. J Comp Psychol 128:357–366CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. McMillan N, Sturdy CB, Spetch ML (2015) When is a choice not a choice? Pigeons fail to inhibit incorrect responses on a go/no-go midsession reversal task. J Exp Psychol 41:255–265Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of AlbertaEdmontonCanada
  2. 2.Neuroscience and Mental Health InstituteUniversity of AlbertaEdmontonCanada

Personalised recommendations