Abstract
Previously, we have shown that changes in pigeons’ divided attention performance resulting from changes in relative reinforcement are well described by the generalized matching law. In the present experiment, we examined whether sensitivity of performance to variations in relative reinforcement would be dependent upon sample duration. Pigeons responded on a delayed matching-to-sample procedure with compound samples (color 1 line orientation) and element comparison stimuli (two colors or two line orientations). Relative reinforcement for accurate matches on the two types of comparison trials varied across conditions. Sample duration was short (i.e., 0.75 sec) for half of the trials in a session and longer (i.e., 2.25 sec) for the other half. Sensitivity of accuracy to changes in relative reinforcement was greater with the longer sample than with the shorter sample, suggesting that differential reinforcement alters the allocation of attending to the elements of compound stimuli. Continued examination of the applicability of well-established theories of goal-directed behavior to the allocation of attention may provide further insights into what is variously referred to as goal-directed, voluntary, endogenous, or top-down control of attention.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Alsop, B. (2004). Signal-detection analyses of conditional discrimination and delayed matching-to-sample performance.Journal of Experimental Analysis of Behavior,82, 57–69.
Alsop, B., &Elliffe, D. (1988). Concurrent-schedule performance: Effects of relative and overall reinforcer rate.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,49, 21–36.
Baum, W. M. (1974). On two types of deviation from the matching law: Bias and undermatching.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,22, 231–242.
Baum, W. M. (1979). Matching, undermatching, and overmatching in studies of choice.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,32, 269–281.
Blough, P. M. (1991). Selective attention and search image in pigeons.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,17, 292–298.
Davison, M. [C.], &McCarthy, D. (1988).The matching law: A research review. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Davison, M. [C.], &Nevin, J. A. (1999). Stimuli, reinforcers, and behavior: An integration.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,71, 439–482.
Davison, M. C., &Tustin, R. D. (1978). The relation between the generalized matching law and signal-detection theory.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,29, 331–336.
Egeth, H. E., &Yantis, S. (1997). Visual attention: Control, representation, and time course.Annual Review of Psychology,48, 269–297.
Gibson, B. M., Juricevic, I., Shettleworth, S. J., Pratt, J., &Klein, R. M. (2005). Looking for inhibition of return in pigeons.Learning & Behavior,33, 296–308.
Hautus, M. J. (1995). Corrections for extreme proportions and their biasing effects on estimated values ofd’′.Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers,27, 46–51.
Herrnstein, R. J. (1961). Relative and absolute strength of response as a function of frequency of reinforcement.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,4, 267–272.
Johnston, J. C., McCann, R. R., &Remington, R. W. (1995). Chronometric evidence for two types of attention.Psychological Science,6, 365–369.
Lacourse, D. M., &Blough, D. S. (1998). Effects of discriminability, probability of reinforcement, and handling cost on visual search and prey choice.Animal Learning & Behavior,26, 290–298.
Lamb, M. R. (1991). Attention in humans and animals: Is there a capacity limitation at the time of encoding?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,17, 45–54.
Maki, W. S., &Leith, C. R. (1973). Shared attention in pigeons.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,19, 345–349.
Maki, W. S., &Leuin, T. C. (1972). Information-processing by pigeons.Science,176, 535–536.
McIlvane, W. J., Dube, W. V., &Callahan, T. D. (1996). Attention: A behavior analytic perspective. In G. R. Lyon & N. A. Krasnegor (Eds.),Attention, memory, and executive function (pp. 97–117). Baltimore: Brookes.
Miller, J. T., Saunders S. S., &Bourland, G. (1980). The role of stimulus disparity in concurrently available reinforcement schedules.Animal Learning & Behavior,8, 635–641.
Norman, D. A. (1968). Toward a theory of memory and attention.Psychological Review,75, 522–536.
Roberts, W. A. (1998).Principles of animal cognition. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Santi, A., Grossi, V., &Gibson, M. (1982). Differences in matchingto-sample performance with element and compound sample stimuli in pigeons.Learning & Motivation,13, 240–256.
Shahan, T. A., &Podlesnik, C. A. (2006). Divided attention performance and the matching law.Learning & Behavior,34, 255–261.
Styles, E. A. (1997).The psychology of attention. Hove, U.K.: Psychology Press.
Yantis, S. (2000). Goal-directed and stimulus-driven determinants of attentional control. In S. Monsell & J. Driver (Eds.),Attention and performance XVIII: Control of cognitive processes (pp. 73–103). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Zentall, T. R. (2005). Selective and divided attention in animals.Behavioural Processes,69, 1–15.
Zentall, T. R., &Riley, D. A. (2000). Selective attention in animal discrimination learning.Journal of General Psychology,127, 45–66.
Zentall, T. R., Sherburne L. M., &Zhang, Z. (1997). Shared attention in pigeons: Retrieval failure does not account for the element superiority effect.Learning & Motivation,28, 248–267.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This research was funded by National Institute of Mental Health Grant MH072621 to T.A.S.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Shahan, T.A., Podlesnik, C.A. Divided attention and the matching law: Sample duration affects sensitivity to reinforcement allocation. Learning & Behavior 35, 141–148 (2007). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193049
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193049