Abstract
In studies of transitive inference (TI), nonhuman animals are typically trained with the following 5-term task: A+B−, B+C−, C+D−, D+E− where the letters stand for arbitrary stimuli and [+] indicates that choice is reinforced and [−] indicates that choice is not reinforced. A TI effect is found when, given the untrained test pair BD, subjects choose B. TI effects have been found in many nonhuman species. Although reinforcement history has been posited as an account of the TI effect, it has failed to account for a variety of conditions under which TI effects have been found. A more cognitive account of TI is that organisms are able to form a representation of the series (A > B > C > D > E). In support of this hypothesis, Roberts and Phelps (Psychol Sci 5:368–374, 1994) found that presentation of the pairs of stimuli in a linear arrangement facilitated TI performance by rats, whereas presentation of the pairs of stimuli in a circular arrangement did not. Using methods adapted from Roberts and Phelps, we trained pigeons on either a linear or a circular arrangement of stimuli with the 5-term task. Results indicated that on the BD test pair, pigeons trained with a circular arrangement did not differ from those trained with a linear arrangement. Furthermore, we found that memory for training pairs was variable and was highly correlated with degree of TI. The results suggest that regardless of how pigeons are able to represent the stimuli, choice was not affected by the spatial arrangement of the stimuli during training.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Acuna BD, Eliassen JC, Donoghue JP, Sanes JN (2002) Frontal and parietal lobe activation during transitive inference in humans. Cereb Cortex 12:1312–1321
Benard J, Giurfa M (2004) A test of transitive inferences in free-flying honeybees: unsuccessful performance due to memory constraints. Learn Mem 11:328–336
Bond AB, Wei CA, Kamil AC (2010) Cognitive representation in transitive inference: a comparison of four corvid species. Behav Process 85:283–292
Boysen ST, Berntson GG, Shreyer TA, Quigley KS (1993) Processing of ordinality and transitivity by chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). J Comp Psychol 107:208–215
Bryant PE, Trabasso T (1971) Transitive inferences and memory in young children. Nature 232:456–458
Bunsey M, Eichenbaum H (1996) Conservation of hippocampal memory function in rats and humans. Nature 379:255–257
Cohen J, Bussey K (2003) Rats form cognitive maps from spatial configurations of proximal arm cues in an enclosed 4-arm radial maze. Learn Motiv 34:168–184
Daniels CW, Laude JR, Zentall TR. Six-term transitive inference with pigeons: successive-pair training followed by mixed-pair training. J Exp Anal Behav. doi:10.1002/jeab.65
Davis H (1992) Transitive inference in rats (Rattus norvegicus). J Comp Psychol 106:342–349
De Soto CB, London M, Handel S (1965) Social reasoning and spatial paralogic. J Pers Soc Psychol 2:513–521
DeVito LM, Kanter BR, Eichenbaum H (2010) The hippocampus contributes to memory expression during transitive inference in mice. Hippocampus 20:208–217
Dickinson A (1980) Contemporary animal learning theory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Fersen LV, Wynne CDL, Delius JD, Staddon JER (1991) Transitive inference formation in pigeons. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 17:334–341
Gallistel CR (1990) The organization of learning. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
Gazes RP, Chee NW, Hampton RR (2012) Cognitive mechanisms for transitive inference performance in rhesus monkeys: measuring the influence of associative strength and inferred order. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 38:331–345
Gillan DJ (1981) Reasoning in the chimpanzee: II. Transitive inference. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 7:150–164
Grosenick L, Clement TS, Fernald RD (2007) Fish can infer social rank by observation alone. Nature 445:429–432
Halford GS, Kelly ME (1984) On the basis of early transitivity judgments. J Exp Child Psychol 38:42–63
Higa JJ, Staddon JER (1993) “Transitive inference” in multiple conditional discriminations. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 59:265–291
Kallio KD (1982) Developmental change on a five-term transitive inference. J Exp Child Psychol 33:142–164
Kelly DM, Spetch ML, Heth CD (1998) Pigeons’(Columba livia) encoding of geometric and featural properties of a spatial environment. J Comp Psychol 112:259–269
Lazareva OF, Smirnova AA, Bagozkaja MS, Zorina ZA, Rayevsky VV, Wasserman EA (2004) Transitive responding in hooded crows requires linearly ordered stimuli. J Exp Anal Behav 82:1–19. doi:10.1901/jeab.2004.82-1
Lazareva OF, Wasserman EA (2006) Effects of stimulus orderability and reinforcement history on transitive responding in pigeons. Behav Process 76:161–172
Lazareva OF, Wasserman EA (2010) Nonverbal transitive inference: effects of task and awareness on human performance. Behav Process 83:99–112
Lazareva OF, Wasserman EA (2012) Transitive inference in pigeons: measuring the associative values of stimuli B and D. Behav Process 8:244–255
Libben M, Titone D (2008) The role of awareness and working memory in human transitive inference. Behav Process 77:43–54
McGonigle BO, Chalmers M (1977) Are monkeys logical? Nature 267:694–696
Olson DJ (1991) Species differences in spatial memory among Clark’s nutcrackers, scrub jays, and pigeons. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 17:363–376
Piaget J (1952) Judgment and reasoning in the child. The Humanities Press, New York
Roberts WA, Phelps MT (1994) Transitive inference in rats: a test of the spatial coding hypothesis. Psychol Sci 5:368–374
Roberts WA, Van Veldhuizen N (1985) Spatial memory in pigeons on the radial maze. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 11:241
Singer RA, Abroms BD, Zentall TR (2006) Formation of a simple cognitive map by rats. Int J Comp Psychol 19:417–425
Spetch ML, Mondloch MV (1993) Control of pigeons’ spatial search by graphic landmarks in a touch-screen task. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 19:353–372
Steirn JN, Weaver JE, Zentall TR (1995) Transitive inference in pigeons: simplified procedures and a test of value transfer theory. Learn Behav 23:76–82
Terrace HS (1986) A nonverbal organism’s knowledge of ordinal position in a serial learning task. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 12:203
Trabasso T, Riley CA (1975) The construction and use of representations involving linear order. In: Solso RL (ed) Information processing and cognition: The Loyola symposium. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp 381–410
Treichler FR, Van Tilburg D (1996) Concurrent conditional discrimination tests of transitive inference by macaque monkeys: list linking. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 22:105–117
Urcuioli PJ, Michalek S (2007) Value transfer contributes to ambiguous-cue discrimination learning. Psychon Bull Rev 14:658–662
Vasconcelos M (2008) Transitive inference in non-human animals: an empirical and theoretical analysis. Behav Process 78:313–334
Weaver JE, Steirn JN, Zentall TR (1997) Transitive inference in pigeons: control for differential value transfer. Psychon Bull Rev 4:113–117
Wendelken C, Bunge SA (2009) Transitive inference: distinct contributions of rostrolateral prefrontal cortex and the hippocampus. J Cogn Neurosci 22:837–847
Woocher FD, Glass AL, Holyoak KJ (1978) Positional discriminability in linear orderings. Mem Cogn 6:165–173
Wynne CDL (1995) Reinforcement accounts for transitive inference performance. Anim Learn Behav 23:207–217
Wynne CDL (1998) A minimal model of transitive inference. In: Wynne CDL, Staddon JER (eds) Models of action: mechanisms for adaptive behavior. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New Jersey, pp 269–307
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Daniels, C.W., Laude, J.R. & Zentall, T.R. Transitive inference by pigeons: Does the geometric presentation of the stimuli make a difference?. Anim Cogn 17, 973–981 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-014-0729-0
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-014-0729-0