Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Some Factors that Influence Transfer of Oddity Performance in the Pigeon

  • Article
  • Published:
The Psychological Record Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In Experiment 1, five pigeons were trained on a six-key oddity-from-sample procedure. The third peck on the sample key lighted only one comparison stimulus. Every third peck on the sample key lighted another comparison stimulus up to a maximum of five stimuli. A peck on the key that presented the nonmatching comparison stimulus produced grain. Pecks to matching stimuli darkened the comparison keys and repeated the trial. Performance dropped to near chance levels and recovered rapidly after three novel oddity problems were provided. Experiment 2 shows that having trials that present novel stimuli alternate with trials that present familiar stimuli yields better transfer of oddity performance than direct replacement of familiar stimuli. Experiment 3 demonstrates that sequential presentation of the comparison stimuli maintains higher accuracy levels relative to trials that simultaneously illuminate all the comparison keys. Experiment 4 confirms the results of Experiment 3 and suggests that the sample ratio value is also an important variable.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • BAUM, W. W. (1981). Optimization and the matching law as accounts of instrumental behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 36, 387–404.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • BERRYMAN, R., CUMMING, W. W., COHEN, L. R., & JOHNSON, D. F. (1965). Acquisition and transfer of simultaneous oddity. Psychological Reports, 17, 767–775.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • BHATT, R. S., WASSERMAN, E. A., REYNOLDS, W. R., Jr., & KNAUSS, K. S. (1988). Conceptual behavior in pigeons: Categorization of both familiar and novel examples from four classes of natural and artificial stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 14(3), 219–234.

    Google Scholar 

  • CARTER, D. E., & WERNER, T. J. (1978). Complex learning and information processing by pigeons: A critical analysis. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 29, 565–601.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • CERELLA, J. (1979). Visual classes and natural categories in the pigeon. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 55, 68–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • D’AMATO, M. R., & SALMON, D. P. (1984). Cognitive processes in Cebus monkeys. In H. L. Roitblat, T. G. Bever, & H. S. Terrace (Eds.), Animal cognition (pp. 149–168). Hillside, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • DELIUS, J. D., & NOWAK, B. (1982). Visual symmetry recognition by pigeons. Psychological Research, 44, 199–212.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • FARTHING, G. W., & OPUDA, M. J. (1974). Transfer of matching-to-sample in pigeons. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 21, 199–213.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • FERSTER, C. B., & SKINNER, B. F. (1957). Schedules of reinforcement. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • FUJITA, K. (1983). Acquisition and transfer of a higher-order conditional discrimination performance in the Japanese monkey. Japanese Psychological Research, 2, 1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • GRANT, D. S. (1975). Proactive interference in pigeon short-term memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 1, 207–220.

    Google Scholar 

  • GRANT, D. S., & ROBERTS, W. A. (1976). Sources of retroactive inhibition in pigeon short-term memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 2, 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • HARTER, J. (Ed.). (1978). Harter’s picture archive for collage and illustration. New York: Dover.

    Google Scholar 

  • HERRNSTEIN, R. J. (1974). Formal properties of the matching law. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 21, 159–164.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • HERRNSTEIN, R. J. (1979). Acquisition, generalization, and discrimination reversal of a natural concept. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 5, 116–129.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • HERRNSTEIN, R. J., & DE VILLIERS, P. A. (1980). Fish as a natural category for people and pigeons. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (Vol. 14, pp. 60–97). New York: Academic Press

    Google Scholar 

  • HERRNSTEIN, R. J., & LOVELAND, D. H. (1964). Complex visual concept in the pigeon. Science, 146, 549–551.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • HERRNSTEIN, R. J., LOVELAND, D. H., & CABLE, C. (1976). Natural concepts in pigeons. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 2, 285–311.

    Google Scholar 

  • HOLMES, P. W. (1979). Transfer of matching performance in pigeons. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 31, 103–114.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • HONIG, W. K. (1965). Discrimination, generalization, and transfer on the basis of stimulus differences. In D. I. Mostofsky (Ed.), Stimulus generalization (pp. 218–254). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • HONIG, W. K. (1978). Studies of working memory in the pigeon. In S. H. Hulse, H. Fowler, & W. N. Honig (Eds.), Cognitive processes in animal behavior (pp. 211–248). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • KELLER, F. S., & SCHOENFELD, W. N. (1950). Principles of psychology New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

    Google Scholar 

  • LOMBARDI, C. M., FACHINELLI, C. C., & DELIUS, J. D. (1984). Oddity of visual patterns conceptualized by pigeons. Animal Learning and Behavior, 12, 2–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • LUBOW, R. E. (1974). High-order concept formation in the pigeon. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 21, 475–483.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • MALOTT, R. W., & SIDDALL, J. W. (1972). Acquisition of the people concept in pigeons. Psychological Reports, 31, 3–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MISHKIN, M., & DELACOUR, J. (1975). An analysis of short-term visual memory in the monkey. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 1, 326–334.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • MOISE, S. L. (1976). Proactive effects of stimuli, delays, and response position during delayed matching from sample. Animal Learning and Behavior, 4, 37–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • PISACRETA, R. (in press). Rudimentary rule-governed behavior in the pigeon. In M. L. Commons, S. M. Kosslyn, & R. J. Herrnstein (Eds.), Quantitative analysis of behavior, Vol. 8: Pattern recognition and concepts in animals, people, and machines. Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum.

  • PISACRETA, R., LEFAVE, P., LESNESKI, T, & POTTER, C. (1985). Transfer of oddity learning in the pigeon. Animal Learning and Behavior, 13(4), 403–414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • PISACRETA, R., REDWOOD, T, & WITT, K. (1984). Transfer of matching to figure samples in the pigeon. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 42, 223–237.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • PISACRETA, R., & WITT, K. (1983). Same-different discriminations in the pigeon. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 21(5), 411–414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • PREMACK, D. (1978). On the abstractness of human concepts: Why it would be difficult to talk to a pigeon. In S. H. Hulse, H. Fowler, & W. K. Honig (Eds.), Cognitive processes in animal behavior (pp. 423–451). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • RACHLIN, H. (1978). A molar theory of reinforcement schedules. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 30, 345–360.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • ROBERTS, W. A. (1980). Distribution of trials and intertrial retention in delayed matching to sample with pigeons. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 6, 217–237.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • ROBERTS, W. A., & MAZMANIAN, D. S. (1988). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 14(3), 247–260.

    Google Scholar 

  • ROITBLAT, H. L. (1983). Pigeon’s working memory: Models for delayed matching-to-sample performance. In M. L. Commons, R. J. Herrnstein, & A. R. Wagner, (Eds.), Quantitative analyses of behavior, Vol. 4, Discrimination processes (pp. 161–181). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.

    Google Scholar 

  • ROITBLAT, H. L., BEVER, T. G., & TERRACE, H. S. (Eds.). (1984). Animal cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • ROITBLAT, H. L, & SCOPATZ, R. A. (1983). Sequential effects in pigeon’s delayed matching-to-sample performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 9, 202–221.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • URCUIOLI, P. J. (1977). Transfer of oddity-from-sample performance in pigeons. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 27, 195–202.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • URCUIOLI, P. J., & NEVIN, J. A. (1975). Transfer of hue matching in pigeons. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 24, 149–155.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • VAUGHAN, W., Jr. (1988). Formation of equivalence sets in pigeons. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 14(1), 36–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • WASSERMAN, E. A., KIEDINGER, R. E., & BHATT, R. S. (1988). Conceptual behavior in pigeons: Categories, subcategories, and pseudocategories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 14(3), 235–246.

    Google Scholar 

  • WRIGHT, A. A., SANTIAGO, H. C., URCUIOLI, P. J., & SANDS, S. F. (1983). Monkey and pigeon acquisition of same/different concept using pictorial stimuli. In M. L. Commons, R. J. Herrnstein, & A. R. Wagner (Eds.), Quantitative analyses of behavior, Vol. 4, Discrimination processes (pp. 295–317). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger

    Google Scholar 

  • ZENTALL, T. R., EDWARDS, C. A., & HOGAN, D. E. (1983). Pigeon’s use of identity. In M. L. Commons, R. J. Herrnstein, & A. R. Wagner (Eds.), Quantitative analyses of behavior, Vol. 4, Discrimination processes (pp. 273–293). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.

    Google Scholar 

  • ZENTALL, T. R., HOGAN, D. E., & EDWARDS, C. A. (1980). Oddity learning in the pigeon: Effect of negative instances, correction, and number of incorrect alternatives. Animal Learning and Behavior, 8(4), 621–629.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ZENTALL, T. R., HOGAN, D. E., EDWARDS, C. A., & HEARST, E. (1980). Oddity learning in the pigeon as a function of the number of incorrect alternatives. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 6, 278–299.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Social Sciences, Ferris State University, Big Rapids, MI, 49307, USA

    Richard Pisacreta, David Gough, James Kramer & William Schultz

Authors
  1. Richard Pisacreta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. David Gough
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. James Kramer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. William Schultz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

This study was supported by a faculty research grant to the first author. Experiments 1, 2, and 3 were presented by Richard Pisacreta at the 1986 meeting of the Eastern Psychological Association in New York City. I thank Lauraine Pisacreta for several editorial suggestions.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pisacreta, R., Gough, D., Kramer, J. et al. Some Factors that Influence Transfer of Oddity Performance in the Pigeon. Psychol Rec 39, 221–246 (1989). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03395065

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03395065

Search

Navigation