Behavioral History and Pigeons’ “Guiding Cues” Performance
- 63 Downloads
Response-sequence learning is often studied by manipulating consequences for sequence completion. Results of research evaluating how changes in discriminative stimuli disrupt the accuracy of response sequences suggest that transitions to reversed but highly predictive discriminative stimuli are more disruptive than the removal of discriminative stimuli. Two experiments assessed effects of changing discriminative stimuli on response-sequence accuracy while reinforcement remained contingent on a left-peck, right-peck response sequence. Initially, pigeons were trained on the response sequence in which the S+ key was illuminated red and the S- key was illuminated white. For all conditions of both experiments, the “accurate” response sequence that led to food was the same, but the way the accurate sequence was signaled sometimes differed. In Experiment 1, after training, discriminative stimuli were either removed (by lighting both keys white) or reversed. Accuracy was lower when discriminative stimuli were reversed than when they were removed. Experiment 2 showed that after training with discriminative stimuli, a history of reinforcement without discriminative stimuli was sufficient for the response sequence to emerge at high levels of accuracy when the discriminative stimuli were reversed. Results suggest a parsimonious explanation for why highly predictive discriminative stimuli sometimes fail to control behavior based on behavioral history.
KeywordsFeature-positive effect S-R compatibility Motor skill learning Stimulus control Behavior chain Pigeons
- Gluck, M. A., Mercado, E., & Myers, C. E. (2008). Learning and memory: From brain to behavior. New York: Worth.Google Scholar
- Hearst, E. (1991). Psychology and nothing. American Scientist, 79, 432–443.Google Scholar
- Hommel, B. (1995). Stimulus-response compatibility and the Simon effect: toward an empirical clarification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21, 764–775.Google Scholar
- Jenkins, H. M., & Sainsbury, R. S. (1969). The development of stimulus control through differential reinforcement. In N. J. Mackintosh & W. K. Honig (Eds.), Fundamental issues in associative learning (pp. 123–161). Halifax: Dalhousie University Press.Google Scholar
- Jenkins, H. M., & Sainsbury, R. S. (1970). Discrimination learning with the distinctive feature on positive or negative trials. In D. Mostofsky (Ed.), Attention: Contemporary theory and analysis (pp. 239–273). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
- Proctor, R. W., & Reeve, T. G. (1990). Stimulus-response compatibility: An integrated perspective. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
- Reed, P., Schachtman, T. R., & Hall, G. (1991). Effect of signaled reinforcement on the formation of behavioral units. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 17, 147–162.Google Scholar
- Reid, A.K., Folks, N., & Hardy, J. (2014). On the dynamics of stimulus control during guided skill learning in nonhumans. Behavioural Processes. doi:10.1016/j.beproc.2014.01.017.