Midsession reversal learning by pigeons: Effect on accuracy of increasing the number of stimuli associated with one of the alternatives
The midsession reversal task involves a simultaneous discrimination in which choice of one stimulus (S1) is correct for the first 40 trials and choice of the other stimulus (S2) is correct for the last 40 trials of each 80-trial session. When pigeons are trained on the midsession reversal task, they appear to use the passage of time from the start of the session as a cue to reverse. As the reversal approaches, they begin to make anticipatory errors, choosing S2 early, and following the reversal they make perseverative errors, continuing to choose S1. Recent research suggests that anticipatory errors can be reduced (while not increasing perseverative errors) by reducing the probability of reinforcement for correct S2 choices from 100% to 20%. A similar effect can be found by increasing the response requirement for choice of S2 from one peck to ten pecks. In the present experiments, we asked if a similar effect could be attained by increasing the number of stimuli that, over trials, could serve as S2. Instead, in both experiments, we found that increasing the number of S2 stimuli actually increased the number of anticipatory errors. Several interpretations of this result are provided, including the possibility that attention to the variable S2 stimuli may have interfered with attention to the S1 stimulus.
KeywordsMidsession reversal Attention Stimulus variability Inhibition Pigeons
Open Practices Statement
The data and materials for both experiments are available from the first author.
- Beckmann, J. S. & Young, M. E. (2007). The feature positive effect in the face of variability: Novelty as a feature. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 33, 72-77.Google Scholar
- Honey, R. C. (1990). Stimulus generalization as a function of stimulus novelty and familiarity in rats. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 16, 178-184.Google Scholar
- Macphail, E. M., & Reilly, S. (1989). Rapid acquisition of a novelty versus familiarity concept by pigeons (Columba livia). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 15, 242–252.Google Scholar
- McMillan, N., & Roberts, W. A. (2012). Pigeons make errors as a result of interval timing in a visual, but not a visual-spatial, midsession reversal task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 38, 440–445.Google Scholar
- McMillan, N., Sturdy, C. B., & Spetch, M. L. (2015). When is a choice not a choice? Pigeons fail to inhibit incorrect responses on a go/no-go midsession reversal task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Learning and Cognition, 41, 255-265.Google Scholar
- Zentall, T. R., Andrews, D. M., Case, J. P., Peng, D. N. (in press). Less information results in better midsession reversal accuracy by pigeons. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Learning and Cognition.Google Scholar
- Zentall, T. R., Peng, D., & Miles, L. (in press). Transitive inference in pigeons may result from differential tendencies to reject the test stimuli acquired during training. Animal Cognition.Google Scholar
- Zentall, T. R., & Sherburne, L. M. (1994). Transfer of value from S+ to S- in a simultaneous discrimination. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 20, 176-183.Google Scholar