Advertisement

Psychonomic Science

, Volume 26, Issue 5, pp 273–275 | Cite as

Angularity preferences and stimulus orthogonality in pigeons

  • Leo P. Giurintano
  • Margaret Schadler
  • David R. Thomas
Memory, Learning, & Thinking Sense
  • 79 Downloads

Abstract

Seventy-two pigeons were given single-stimulus training for variable-interval reinforcement and were then tested for generalization (preference) with a white line on a dark surround at angles of 90 (vertical), 60, and 30 deg. The training stimuli were (in different groups) a white light, a very dim white light, a green light, and a white dot on a dark surround. Any preexperimental preference for a given line angle should have been reflected in all groups; however, no such consistent preference was found. All training stimuli were logically orthogonal to the line angle dimension, yet training with the white light or the dim light resulted in a preference for vertical, training with the dot resulted in a preference for 30 deg, and training with the green resulted in no preference at all. Thus, orthogonality is an empirical rather than a logical matter, and it must be demonstrated in the context in which the concept is to be employed.

Keywords

Training Condition Training Stimulus Generalization Test Line Angle Logical Matter 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. HEARST, E., BESLEY, S., & FARTHING, G. W. Inhibition and the stimulus control of operant behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1970, 14(No. 1, Pt. 2), 373–409.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. HEARST, E., & KORESKO, M. B. Stimulus generalization and amount of prior training on variable-interval reinforcement. Journal of Comparative & Physiological Psychology, 1968, 66, 133–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. JENKINS, H. M., & SAINSBURY, R. S. Discrimination learning with the distinctive feature on positive or negative trials. In D. I. Mostofsky (Ed.), Attention: Contemporary theory and analysis. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1970.Google Scholar
  4. LYONS, J. Stimulus generalization as a function of discrimination learning with and without errors. Science, 1969, 163, 490–491.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. SCHADLER, M., & THOMAS, D. R. On the acquisition of dimensional stimulus control in pigeons. Journal of Comparative & Physiological Psychology, 1972, in press.Google Scholar
  6. SWITALSKI, R. W., LYONS, J., & THOMAS, D. R. The effects of interdimensional training on stimulus generalization. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1966, 72, 661–666.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. TERRACE, H. S. Discrimination learning and inhibition. Science, 1966, 154, 1677–1680.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. THOMAS, D. R., FREEMAN, F., SVINICKI, J. G., BURR, D. E. S., & LYONS, J. The effects of extra-dimensional training on stimulus generalization. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1970, 83 (No. 1, Pt. 2), 1–21.Google Scholar
  9. THOMAS, D. R., & JONES, C. G. Stimulus generalization as a function of the frame of reference. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1962, 64, 77–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Psychonomic Society, Inc. 1972

Authors and Affiliations

  • Leo P. Giurintano
    • 1
  • Margaret Schadler
    • 1
  • David R. Thomas
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of ColoradoBoulderUSA

Personalised recommendations