Henning, J. M., & Zentall, T. R. (1981). Imitation, social facilitation, and the effects of ACTH 4-10 on rats' bar-pressing behavior. Am J Psychol, 94(1), 125–134.
Abstract: The effects of ACTH 4-10 on rats' imitation learning was examined during the acquisition and extinction of a bar-press response for water reinforcement. Rats were exposed to either a bar-pressing conspecific (OB), an experimentally naive conspecific (ON), or an empty box (OE) during bar-press acquisition. In a factorial design, each rat was then exposed to one of the same three conditions during extinction. An 80 mcg dose of ACTH 4-10 was administered to half of the rats in each group prior to observation. Performance differences during acquisition were generally small, but significant performance differences during extinction were found. Social facilitation was indicated by the finding that rats extinguished in the presence of a conspecific exhibited significantly greater resistance to extinction than rats extinguished in the presence of an empty box. An imitation effect was also found. Rats that observed a bar-pressing conspecific during both acquisition and extinction (group OB-OB) showed significantly greater resistance top extinction than did groups OB-ON, CB-OE, or OE-OE. There were no significant effects of the hormone, however, relative to saline controls.
|
Zentall, T. R., Hogan, D. E., Edwards, C. A., & Hearst, E. (1980). Oddity learning in the pigeon as a function of the number of incorrect alternatives. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process, 6(3), 278–299.
Abstract: Pigeons' rate of learning a two-color oddity task increased as a function of the number of incorrect alternatives from 2 to 24 in Experiments 1, 2, and 3. In general, pigeons that were transferred from many-incorrect-alternative to two-incorrect-alternative oddity performed better than controls, but considerably below baseline (Experiments 2 and 3). In Experiment 4, pigeons showed no unconditioned tendency to peck the odd stimulus among 24 incorect alternatives, when pecks were nondifferentially reinforced, and in Experiment 5, when this procedure was preceded by oddity training, a progressive drop in odd-stimulus pecking was found. In Experiment 6, pigeons exposed to a nine-stimulus array in which the odd stimulus appeared (a) in the center or (b) separate from the array learned faster than when the odd stimulus was at the edge. This outcome suggests ththe figure-ground relation between the odd stimulus and the incorrect alternatives plays a role in the facilitation produced by increasing the number of incorrect alternatives but that poor performance on the standard, three-alternative oddity task appears to be due to center-odd trials which provide a difficult size or number discrimination.
|
Nallan, G. B., Pace, G. M., McCoy, D. F., & Zentall, T. R. (1979). Temporal parameters of the feature positive effect. Am J Psychol, 92(4), 703–710.
Abstract: Trial duration and intertrial interval duration were parametrically varied between groups of pigeons exposed to a discrimination involving the presence vs. the absence of a dot. Half the groups received the dot as the positive stimulus (feature positive groups) and half the groups received the dot as the negative stimulus (feature negative groups). Faster learning by the feature positive birds (feature positive effect) was found when the trial duration was short (5 sec) regardless of whether the intertrial interval was short (5 sec) or long (30 sec). No evidence for a feature positive effect was found when the trial duration was long (30 sec) regardless of the length of the intertrial interval (30 sec or 180 sec). The results suggest that short trial duration is a necessary condition for the occurrence of the feature positive effect, and neither intertrial interval nor trial duration/intertrial interval ratio are important for its occurrence. The suggestion that mechanisms underlying the feature positive effect and autoshaping might be similar was not supported by the present experiment since the trial duration/intertrial interval ration parameter appears to play an important role in autoshaping but not the feature positive effect.
|
|
Zentall, S. S., & Zentall, T. R. (1976). Activity and task performance of hyperactive children as a function of environmental stimulation. J Consult Clin Psychol, 44(5), 693–697.
|
|
Zentall, T. R., Sutton, J. E., & Sherburne, L. M. (1996). True imitative learning in pigeons. Psychol Sci, 7.
|
Zentall, T. R. (2001). The case for a cognitive approach to animal learning and behavior. Behav Processes, 54(1-3), 65–78.
Abstract: The dangers of hypothesizing about unobservable cognitive mechanisms are well known to behavior analysts. I propose, however, that carefully fashioned cognitive theories that make predictions that are inconsistent with current behavioral theories can provide useful research tools for the understanding of behavior. Furthermore, even if the results of such research may be accommodated by modifying existing behavioral theories, our understanding of behavior is often advanced by the empirical findings because it is unlikely that the research would have been conducted in the absence of such cognitive hypothesizing. Two examples of the development of emergent relations are described: The first deals with the nature of a pigeon's 'representation' of two stimuli both of which are associated with correct responding to a third in a many-to-one matching task (stimulus equivalence or common representations). The second has to do with transitive inference, the emergent relation between two stimuli mediated by their relation to a common stimulus in a simultaneous discrimination.
|
Zentall, T. R. (2006). Imitation: definitions, evidence, and mechanisms. Anim. Cogn., 9(4), 335–353.
Abstract: Imitation can be defined as the copying of behavior. To a biologist, interest in imitation is focused on its adaptive value for the survival of the organism, but to a psychologist, the mechanisms responsible for imitation are the most interesting. For psychologists, the most important cases of imitation are those that involve demonstrated behavior that the imitator cannot see when it performs the behavior (e.g., scratching one's head). Such examples of imitation are sometimes referred to as opaque imitation because they are difficult to account for without positing cognitive mechanisms, such as perspective taking, that most animals have not been acknowledged to have. The present review first identifies various forms of social influence and social learning that do not qualify as opaque imitation, including species-typical mechanisms (e.g., mimicry and contagion), motivational mechanisms (e.g., social facilitation, incentive motivation, transfer of fear), attentional mechanisms (e.g., local enhancement, stimulus enhancement), imprinting, following, observational conditioning, and learning how the environment works (affordance learning). It then presents evidence for different forms of opaque imitation in animals, and identifies characteristics of human imitation that have been proposed to distinguish it from animal imitation. Finally, it examines the role played in opaque imitation by demonstrator reinforcement and observer motivation. Although accounts of imitation have been proposed that vary in their level of analysis from neural to cognitive, at present no theory of imitation appears to be adequate to account for the varied results that have been found.
|
|
Zentall, S. S., Zentall, T. R., & Barack, R. C. (1978). Distraction as a function of within-task stimulation for hyperactive and normal children. J Learn Disabil, 11(9), 540–548.
|
Zentall, T. R., & Hogan, D. E. (1978). Same/different concept learning in the pigeon: the effect of negative instances and prior adaptation to transfer stimuli. J Exp Anal Behav, 30(2), 177–186.
Abstract: Pigeons were trained on a matching-to-sample or oddity-from-sample task with shapes (circle and plus). Half of each group was exposed to “negative instance” trials i.e., for matching birds, neither comparison key matched the sample, and for oddity birds both comparison keys matched the sample. When all birds were transferred to a new task involving colors (red and green), nonshifted birds (transferred from matching to matching, or oddity to oddity) performed significantly better than shifted birds (transferred from matching to oddity, or oddity to matching), but only if they had experienced negative instances of the training concept. When all birds were exposed to negative instances of the transfer task and then transferred to a new color task (yellow and blue), dramatic transfer effects were observed. The effect of pre-exposure to the yellow and blue colors, in order to reduce transfer-stimulus novelty, had a minor effect on transfer.
|
Zentall, T. R., & Hogan, D. E. (1975). Key pecking in pigeons produced by pairing keylight with inaccessible grain. J Exp Anal Behav, 23(2), 199–206.
Abstract: In Experiment I, keylight was paired with inaccessible grain delivery (under two conditions of keylight intensity) to determine if autoshaping would occur in the absence of primary reinforcement. In Experiment II, the procedure was repeated with accessible grain, for comparison. In Experiment III, the procedures were repeated with explicitly unpaired presentations of keylight and either inaccessible or accessible grain. The results indicated that key pecking occurred as quickly in the presence of keylight pairings with inaccessible grain as with accessible grain, though (except for one bird) key pecking was not maintained with inaccessible grain. Furthermore, compared to the dim keylight, the bright keylight greatly suppressed key pecking when paired with inaccessible grain, and reduced the rate of key pecking when paired with accessible grain. Little key pecking occurred in groups exposed to explicitly unpaired presentations of keylight (whether bright or dim) and grain (whether accessible or inaccessible). When the birds in Experiment III were retested with explicitly paired presentations of keylight and grain, little key pecking was observed, suggesting suppressive effects of prior explicitly unpaired presentations. It is suggested that the effects of key-brightness manipulation were produced by the association of grain with cues other than the response key, or by distraction produced by partial illumination of the grain hopper.
|
