In a midsession reversal (MSR) task, animals are typically presented with a simple, simultaneous discrimination (S1+, S2−) where contingencies are reversed (S1−, S2+) half-way through each session. This paradigm creates multiple, relevant cues that can aid in maximizing overall reinforcement. Recent research has shown that pigeons show systematic anticipatory and perseverative errors across the session, which increase as a function of proximity to the reversal trial. This behavior has been theorized to indicate primary control by temporal cues across the session, instead of the cues provided by recent reinforcement history that appear to control behavior shown by humans. Rats, however, appear to be guided by recent reinforcement history when tested in an operant context, thereby demonstrating behavior that parallels that seen in humans, but they appear to be guided by temporal cues when tested in an open-field apparatus, showing behavior more akin to that seen in pigeons. We tested rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta) on the MSR with a computerized simultaneous visual discrimination to assess whether they would show errors indicative of control by time or by recent reinforcement history. When a single reversal point occurred midsession, rhesus macaques showed no anticipation of the reversal and a similar level of perseveration to rats tested in an operant setting. Nearly identical results also were observed when the monkeys were trained with a single, variable reversal point or with multiple, variable reversal points within a session. These results indicate that temporal cues are not guiding response flexibility in rhesus macaque visual discrimination.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
The authors thank Mattea Rossettie for her assistance with data collection with the monkeys. The authors also thank Ali Qadri and Robert Cook for their advice and assistance with data analysis.
The corresponding author, Dr. Rebecca M. Rayburn-Reeves, was supported by a grant from the US National Eye Institute (#RO1EY022655) to Robert G. Cook (Email: Robert.Cook@tufts.edu). The remaining authors, Ms. Brielle T. James and Dr. Michael J. Beran, were supported by a grant from the US National Institutes of Health (HD060563).
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Human and animal rights
All applicable international, national and/or institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed. All procedures performed in studies involving animals were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institution or practice at which the studies were conducted. This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.
The datasets from the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Beran MJ, Klein ED, Evans TA, Chan B, Flemming TM, Harris EH, Rumbaugh DM (2008) Discrimination reversal learning in capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella). Psychol Rec 58:3–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bond AB, Kamil AC, Balda RP (2007) Serial reversal learning and the evolution of behavioral flexibility in three species of North American corvids (Gymnorhinus cyanocephalus, Nucifraga columbiana, Aphelocoma californica). J Comp Psychol 121:372–379. doi:10.1037/0735-7036.121.4.372CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
D’Amato MR, Colombo M (1988) Representation of serial order in monkeys (Cebus apella). J Exp Psychol 14:131–139Google Scholar
Evans TA, Beran MJ, Chan B, Klein ED, Menzel CR (2008) An efficient computerized testing method for the capuchin monkey (Cebus apella): Adaptation of the LRC-CTS to a socially housed nonhuman primate species. Behav Res Methods 40:590–596. doi:10.3758/brm.40.2.590CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Laude JR, Pattison KF, Rayburn-Reeves RM, Michler DM, Zentall TR (2016) Who are the real bird brains? Qualitative differences in behavioral flexibility between dogs (Canis familiaris) and pigeons (Columba livia). Anim Cogn 19:163–169. doi:10.1007/s10071-015-0923-8CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Levine M (1975) A cognitive theory of learning: research on hypothesis testing, vol xii. Lawrence Erlbaum, OxfordGoogle Scholar
McMillan N, Roberts WA (2012) Pigeons make errors as a result of interval timing in a visual, but not a visual-spatial, midsession reversal task. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 38:440–445. doi:10.1037/a0030192CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
McMillan N, Kirk CR, Roberts WA (2014) Pigeon (Columba livia) and rat (Rattus norvegicus) performance in the midsession reversal procedure depends upon cue dimensionality. J Comp Psychol 128:357–366. doi:10.1037/a0036562CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Rayburn-Reeves RM, Laude JR, Zentall TR (2013a) Pigeons show near-optimal win-stay/lose-shift performance on a simultaneous-discrimination, midsession reversal task with short intertrial intervals. Behav Process 92:65–70. doi:10.1016/j.beproc.2012.10.011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rayburn-Reeves RM, Stagner JP, Kirk CR, Zentall TR (2013b) Reversal learning in rats (Rattus norvegicus) and pigeons (Columba livia): qualitative differences in behavioral flexibility. J Comp Psychol 127:202–211. doi:10.1037/a0026311CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar