Skip to main content
Log in

Processing of hierarchic stimulus structures has advantages in humans and animals

  • Published:
Biological Cybernetics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Carmesin and Schwegler (1994) have determined theoretically that a linear hierarchical stimulus structure can be encoded by a parallel network of minimal complexity. The experiments reported here compare the efficiency with which humans and pigeons process sets of stimulus pairs embodying different inequality structures. Groups of subjects of each species were taught to discriminate all 10 pairwise combinations of 5 stimuli with an operant conditioning method. For one group, the reward/punishment allocations within the pairs agreed with a linear hierarchy. For a second and third group, the reinforcement allocations of one or three, respectively, of the stimulus pairs deviated from such ordering. The time it took the subjects to learn the tasks as well as the final choice latencies and/or error rates increased with the number of deviating inequalities. The results agree with the assumption that both humans and pigeons encode stimulus inequality structures with parallel processing neural networks rather than with a sequentially processing algorithm.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Archer J (1992) Ethology and human development. Harvester Wheatsheaf, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Carmesin HO, Schwegler H (1994) Parallel versus sequential processing of relational stimulus structures. Biol Cybern 71:523–529

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Couvillon PA, Bitterman ME (1992) A conventional conditioning analysis of “transitive inference” in pigeons. J Exp Psychol [Anim Behav Proc] 18:308–310

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fersen L von, Delius JD (1992) Schlußfolgerndes Denken bei Tauben. Spektr Wiss July: 18–22

  • Fersen L von, Wynne CDL, Delius JD, Staddon JER (1991) Transitive inference formation in pigeons. J Exp Psychol [Anim Behav Proc] 17:334–341

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gellermann LW (1933) Chance orders of alternating stimuli in visual discrimination experiments. J Genet Psychol 42:206–208

    Google Scholar 

  • Henley N, Horsfall R, De Soto C (1969) Goodness of figure and social structure. Psychol Rev 76:194–204

    Google Scholar 

  • Herrnstein RJ (1990) Levels of stimulus control: a functional approach. Cognition 37:133–166

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Luce DR (1959) Individual choice behavior. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Medin DL, Smith EE (1984) Concepts and concept formation. Annu Rev Psychol 35:113–138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Potts GR (1972) Information strategies used in the encoding of linear orderings. J Verbal Learn Behav 103:431–439

    Google Scholar 

  • Rescorla RA, Wagner AR (1972) A theory of Pavlovian conditioning: variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and nonreinforcement. In: Black AH, Prokasy WF (eds) Classical conditioning II: current research and theory. Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York, pp 64–99

    Google Scholar 

  • Riley CA (1976) The representation of comparative relations and the transitive inference task. J Exp Child Psychol 22:1–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siemann M (1993a) Trnsitive inferences, experimentelle Untersuchung einer kognitiven Leistung. Dissertation, University of Konstanz

  • Siemann M (1993b) Transitive inferences in pigeons and humans. In: Elsner N, Heisenberg M (eds) Gene, brain, behavior. Thieme, Stuttgart, p 857

    Google Scholar 

  • Siemann M, Delius JD (1993) Implicit deductive responding in humans. Naturwissenschaft 80:364–366

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trabasso T, Riley CA (1975) The construction and use of representation involving linear order. In: Solso RL (ed) Information processing and cognition. The Loyola Symposium. Erlbaum, New York, pp 381–410

    Google Scholar 

  • Terrace HS (1987) Chunking by a pigeon in a serial learning task. Nature 325:149–151

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Werner U, Köppl U, Delius JD (1992) Transitive Inferenz bei nichtverbaler Aufgabenstellung. Z Exp Angew Psychol 19:662–683

    Google Scholar 

  • Wickelgren WA (1979) Cognitive psychology. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs

    Google Scholar 

  • Wynne CDL, Fersen L von, Staddon JER (1992) Pigeons' transitive inferences are the outcome of elementary conditioning principles: a response. J Exp Psychol [Anim Behav Proc] 18:313–315

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xia L, Wynne CDL, Münchow-Pohl F von, Delius JD (1991) Psychobasic: a Basic dialect for the control of psychological experiments with the Commodore-64 and Dela interfacing. Behav Res Method Instr Comp 23:72–76

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Siemann, M., Delius, J.D. Processing of hierarchic stimulus structures has advantages in humans and animals. Biol. Cybern. 71, 531–536 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00198471

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00198471

Keywords

Navigation