Abstract
The limited capacity hypothesis explains the element superiority effect observed in pigeons’ element-compound matching-to-sample performance as the result of a central information processing overload occurring at the time of sample exposure. Major alternative hypotheses offered in the literature to date argue that element superiority is due to a difference in element- and compound-sample memory codes or to a peripheral sensory limitation during sample exposure. These alternative factors weresimultaneously prevented from influencing matching performance in the present experiment, but the element superiority effect remained. A central information processing account of the element superiority effect is supported by the strong tests of alternative hypotheses provided herein. The discussion addresses remaining challenges to the hypothesis that information overload for compound samples occurs at the time of sample exposure.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Allport, D. A. (1980). Attention and performance. In G. Claxton (Ed.),Cognitive psychology: New directions (pp. 112–153). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Allport, D. A., Antonis, B., &Reynolds, P. (1972). On the division of attention: A disproof of the single channel hypothesis.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,24, 225–235.
Brown, M. F., &Morrison, S. K. (1990). Element and compound matching-to-sample performance in pigeons: The roles of information load and training history.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,16, 185–192.
Cook, R. G. (1980). Retroactive interference in pigeon short-term memory by a reduction in ambient illumination.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,6, 326–338.
Cook, R. G., Riley, D. A., &Brown, M. F. (1992). Spatial and configurai factors in compound stimulus processing by pigeons.Animal Learning & Behavior,20, 41–55.
Cox, J. K., &D’Amato, M. R. (1982). Matching to compound samples by monkeys (Cebus apelld): Shared attention or generalization decrement?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,8, 209–225.
Grant, D. S., &MacDonald, S. E. (1986). Matching to element and compound samples in pigeons: The roles of sample coding.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,12, 160–171.
Kraemer, P. J., Mazmanian, D. S., &Roberts, W. A. (1987). Simultaneous processing of visual and spatial stimuli in pigeons.Animal Learning & Behavior,15, 417–422.
Kraemer, P. J., &Roberts, W. A. (1985). Short-term memory for simultaneously presented visual and auditory signals in the pigeon.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,11, 137–152.
Kraemer, P. J., &Roberts, W. A. (1987). Restricted processing of simultaneously presented brightness and pattern stimuli in pigeons.Animal Learning & Behavior,15, 15–24.
Lamb, M. R. (1988). Selective attention: Effects of cueing on the processing of different types of compound stimull.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,14, 96–104.
Lamb, M. R. (1991). Attention in humans and animals: Is there capacity limitation at the time of encoding?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,17, 45–54.
Lamb, M. R., &Riley, D. A. (1981). Effects of element arrangement on the processing of compound stimuli in pigeons (Columba livia).Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,7, 45–58.
Leith, C. R., &Maki, W. S., Jr. (1975). Attentional shifts during matching-to-sample performance in pigeons.Animal Learning & Behavior,3, 85–89.
Maki, W. S., Jr., &Leith, C. R. (1973). Shared attention in pigeons.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,19, 345–349.
Maki, W. S., Jr., &Leuin, T. C. (1972). Information processing by pigeons.Science,176, 535–536.
Maki, W. S., Jr.,Riley, D. A., &Leith, C. R. (1976). The role of test stimuli in matching to compound samples by pigeons.Animal Learning & Behavior,4, 13–21.
Roberts, W. A., &Grant, D. S. (1978). Interaction of sample and comparison stimuli in delayed matching-to-sample with the pigeon.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,4, 68–82.
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.
Treisman, A. M., &Davies, A. (1973). Divided attention to ear and eye. In S. Kornblum (Ed.),Attention and Performance IV (pp. 101–125). New York: Academic Press.
Wilkie, D. M., &Summers, R. J. (1982). Pigeons’ spatial memory: Factors affecting delayed matching of key location.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,37, 45–56.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This research was supported by NIMH Grant MH44746 to D.A.R. We thank Geoffrey Keppel for his assistance with statistical analyses. Thanks also to Marvin Lamb, Anthony Wright, and an unidentified reviewer for helpful comments on previous versions of the manuscript.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Langley, C.M., Riley, D.A. Limited capacity information processing and pigeon matching-to-sample: Testing alternative hypotheses. Animal Learning & Behavior 21, 226–232 (1993). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03197986
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03197986