Advertisement

Animal Cognition

, Volume 21, Issue 3, pp 315–329 | Cite as

Adaptive learning and forgetting in an unconventional experimental routine

  • Daniel Bell-Garrison
  • Nathaniel C. Rice
  • Elizabeth G. E. KyonkaEmail author
Original Paper

Abstract

Forgetting is often thought of as the inability to remember, but remembering and forgetting allow behavior to adapt to a changing environment in distinct and separable ways. Learning and forgetting were assessed concurrently in two pigeon experiments that involved the same unconventional routine where the schedule of reinforcement changed every session. Sessions were run back-to-back with a 23-h mid-session break such that in a single visit to the testing chamber, a pigeon completed the second half of one session and the first half of the next. The beginning of a new session was either signaled or unsignaled. Experiment 1 involved concurrent variable–interval variable–interval schedules with four possible reinforcer ratios. Response allocation was sensitive to the richer schedule and was retained through the mid-session break. Experiment 2 involved peak interval schedules of varying durations. Temporal discrimination was rapidly acquired before and after the mid-session break, but not retained. Signaling the session change decreased control by past contingencies in both experiments, demonstrating that learning and forgetting can be investigated separately. These results suggest that the temporal structure of training, such as multiple short daily sessions instead of one long session, can meaningfully impact measurement of animals’ capacity to forget and remember.

Keywords

Adaptive forgetting Choice Key peck Pigeons Rapid acquisition Temporal learning 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Matt Eckard, Shrinidhi Subramaniam and Alex Ward for helping collect data for this study. Thanks to Anthony McLean for his helpful comments on an earlier draft of this manuscript. Portions of this research were completed as part of the first and second authors’ theses in psychology at West Virginia University and were supported by the Eberly College of Arts and Sciences and the Department of Psychology.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All applicable international, national and 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 institutional animal care and use committee at West Virginia University, where the studies were conducted.

References

  1. Altman EM, Gray WD (2002) Forgetting to remember: the functional relationship of decay and interference. Psychol Sci 13:27–33.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00405 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ator AA (1991) Subjects and instrumentation. In: Lattal KA, Iversen IH (eds) Experimental analysis of behavior. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 1–62Google Scholar
  3. Baum WM (1974) On two types of deviation from the matching law: bias and undermatching. J Exp Anal Behav 22:231–242.  https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1974.22-231 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. Baum WM (1979) Matching, undermatching, and overmatching in studies of choice. J Exp Anal Behav 32:269–281.  https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1979.32-269 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. Baum WM (2004) Molar and molecular views of choice. Behav Process 66:349–359.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2004.03.013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baum WM, Rachlin HC (1969) Choice as time allocation. J Exp Anal Behav 12:861–874.  https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1969.12-861 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Bechtold SE, Janaro RE, De Witt LS (1984) Maximization of labor productivity through optimal rest-break schedules. Manag Sci 12:1442–1458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bolles RC (1985) Short-term memory and attention. In: Nilsson L, Archer T, Nilsson L, Archer T (eds) Perspectives on learning and memory. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc., Hillsdale, pp 137–146Google Scholar
  9. Bouton ME (1993) Context, time, and memory retrieval in the interference paradigms of Pavlovian learning. Psychol Bull 114(1):80–99CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Bouton ME (1994) Conditioning, remembering, and forgetting. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 20:219–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cheng K, Westwood R (1993) Analysis of single trials in pigeons’ timing performance. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 19(1):56–67.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0097-7403.19.1.56 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Church RM, Meck WH, Gibbon J (1994) Application of scalar timing theory to individual trials. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 20(2):135–155.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0097-7403.20.2.135 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Devenport LD (1998) Spontaneous recovery without interference: why remembering is adaptive. Anim Learn Behav 26(2):172–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ericksen SC (1941) The effect of distributed and massed practice on the nature of errors made by normal and operated rats. J Comp Psychol 31:57–68.  https://doi.org/10.1037/h0060326 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fleshler M, Hoffman HS (1962) A progression for generating variable-interval schedules. J Exp Anal Behav 5:529–530.  https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1962.5-529 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. Fox AE, Prue KE, Kyonka EGE (2016) What is timed in a fixed-interval temporal bisection procedure? Learn Behav 44(4):366–377.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13420-016-0228-z CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Fuss T, Schluessel V (2015) Erratum to: something worth remembering: visual discrimination in sharks. Anim Cogn 17(2):472–474.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-014-0815-3 Google Scholar
  18. Gallistel CR, Gibbon J (2000) Time, rate, and conditioning. Psychol Rev 107:289–344.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.107.2.289 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Gleitman H (1971) Forgetting of long-term memories in animals. In: Honig WK, James PHR (eds) Animal memory. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 1–44Google Scholar
  20. Grace RC (2016) Acquisition of choice in concurrent chains: assessing the cumulative decision model. Behav Process 126:82–93.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2016.03.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Grace RC, Nevin JA (1999) Timing and choice in concurrent chains. Behav Process 45:115–127.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0376-6357(99)00013-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Grace RC, Bragason O, McLean A (2003) Rapid acquisition of preference in concurrent chains. J Exp Anal Behav 80:235–252.  https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.2003.80-235 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. Haq SS, Kodak T (2015) Evaluating the effects of massed and distributed practice on acquisition and maintenance of tacts and textual behavior with typically developing children. J Appl Behav Anal 48:85–95.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.178 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Herrnstein RJ (1961) Relative and absolute strength of response as a function of frequency of reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav 4:267–272.  https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1961.4-267 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. Houston AI, McNamara JM (1989) The value of food: effects of open and closed economies. Anim Behav 37(4):546–562.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-3472(89)90034-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hunter I, Davison M (1985) Determination of a behavioral transfer function: white-noise analysis of session-to-session response-ratio dynamics on concurrent VI VI schedules. J Exp Anal Behav 43:43–59.  https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1985.43-43 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. Johnston JM, Pennypacker HS (2009) Strategies and tactics of behavioral research, 3rd edn. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  28. Kimble GA (1961) Hilgard and Marquis' "Conditioning and learning."Google Scholar
  29. Kornell N (2009) Optimising learning using flashcards: spacing is more effective than cramming. Appl Cogn Psychol 23:1297–1317.  https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1537 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kraemer PJ, Roberts WA (1984) The influence of flavor preexposure and test interval on conditioned taste aversions in the rat. Learn Motiv 15(3):259–278.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0023-9690(84)90022-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kraemer PJ, Golding JM (1997) Adaptive forgetting in animals. Psychol Bull Rev 4(4):480–491.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03214337 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kraemer P, Spear NE (1993) Retrieval processes and conditioning. In: Zentall TR (ed) Animal cognition: a tribute to Donald A. Riley. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, pp 87–107Google Scholar
  33. Kyonka EGE (2008) The matcfhing law and effects of reinforcer rate and magnitude on choice in transition. Behav Process 78:210–216.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2007.12.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kyonka EGE, Grace RC (2007) Rapid acquisition of choice and timing in pigeons. J Exp Psychol 33(4):393–408.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0097-7403.33.4.392 Google Scholar
  35. Kyonka EGE, Grace RC (2008) Rapid acquisition of preference in concurrent chains when alternatives differ on multiple dimensions of reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav 89:49–69.  https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.2008.89-49 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  36. Kyonka EGE, Grace RC (2009) Effects of unpredictable changes in initial-link duration on choice and timing. Behav Process 81:1–6.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2008.12.024 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kyonka EGE, Grace RC (2010) Rapid acquisition of choice and timing and the provenance of the terminal-link effect. J Exp Anal Behav 94:209–225.  https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.2010.94-209 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  38. Maguire DR, Hughes CE, Pitts RC (2007) Rapid acquisition of preference in concurrent schedules: effects of reinforcement amount. Behav Process 75:213–219.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2007.02.019 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Maguire DR, Rodewald AM, Hughes CE, Pitts RC (2009) Rapid acquisition of preference in concurrent schedules: effects of d-amphetamine on sensitivity to reinforcement amount. Behav Process 81(2):238–243.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2009.01.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Page S, Neuringer A (1985) Variability is an operant. J Exp Psychol 11(3):429–452.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0097-7403.11.3.429 Google Scholar
  41. Pellegrini AD, Bohn CM (2005) The role of recess in children’s cognitive performance and school adjustment. Educ Res 34:13–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rasberry CN, Lee SM, Robin L, Laris BA, Russell LA, Coyle KK, Nihiser AJ (2011) The association between school-based physical activity, including physical education, and academic performance: a systematic review of the literature. Prev Med Int J Devot Pract Theory 52:S10–S20.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2011.01.027 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rice N, Grace RC, Kyonka EGE (2014) Pigeons learn signal-food intervals independently in a multiple peak procedure. J Exp Psychol Anim Learn Cogn 40(2):241–248.  https://doi.org/10.1037/xan0000011 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Roberts S (1981) Isolation of an internal clock. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 7:242–268.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0097-7403.7.3.242 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Schofield G, Davison M (1997) Nonstable concurrent choice in pigeons. J Exp Anal Behav 68:219–232.  https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1997.68-219 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  46. Sidman M (1960) Tactics of scientific research. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  47. Skinner BF, Vaughan ME (1983) Enjoy old age: a program of self-management. Norton, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  48. Smith SM (2011) Blocking out blocks. In: Benjamin AS (ed) Successful remembering and successful forgetting. Psychology Press, New York, pp 153–174Google Scholar
  49. Spear NE (1971) Forgetting as retrieval failure, chap 2. In: Agranoff BW, Honig WK, James PHR (eds) Animal Memory. Academic Press, pp 45–109Google Scholar
  50. Staddon JER (1968) Spaced responding and choice: a preliminary analysis. J Exp Anal Behav 11:669–682.  https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1968.11-669 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  51. Stubbs DA, Pliskoff SS (1969) Concurrent responding with fixed relative rate of reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav 12:887–895.  https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1969.12-887 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  52. Subramaniam S, Kyonka EGE (2016) Environmental dynamics modulate covariation of choice and timing. Behav Process 124:130–140.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2016.01.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Trougakos JP, Hideg I, Cheng BH, Beal DJ (2014) Lunch breaks unpacked: the role of autonomy as a moderator of recovery during lunch. Acad Manag J 57(2):405–421.  https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.10 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyWest Virginia UniversityMorgantownUSA
  2. 2.Psychology and Behavioural ScienceUniversity of New EnglandArmidaleAustralia
  3. 3.United States Army Medical Research Institute of Chemical DefenseGunpowderUSA

Personalised recommendations