|
|
Cheney, D. L., Seyfarth, R. M., & Silk, J. B. (1995). The responses of female baboons (Papio cynocephalus ursinus) to anomalous social interactions: evidence for causal reasoning? J Comp Psychol, 109(2), 134–141.
Abstract: Baboons' (Papio cynocephalus ursinus) understanding of cause-effect relations in the context of social interactions was examined through use of a playback experiment. Under natural conditions, dominant female baboons often grunt to more subordinate mothers when interacting with their infants. Mothers occasionally respond to these grunts by uttering submissive fear barks. Subjects were played causally inconsistent call sequences in which a lower ranking female apparently grunted to a higher ranking female, and the higher ranking female apparently responded with fear barks. As a control, subjects heard a sequence made causally consistent by the inclusion of grunts from a 3rd female that was dominant to both of the others. Subjects responded significantly more strongly to the causally inconsistent sequences, suggesting that they recognized the factors that cause 1 individual to give submissive vocalizations to another.
|
|
|
|
Seyfarth, R. M., Cheney, D. L., & Marler, P. (1980). Monkey responses to three different alarm calls: evidence of predator classification and semantic communication. Science, 210(4471), 801–803.
Abstract: Vervet monkeys give different alarm calls to different predators. Recordings of the alarms played back when predators were absent caused the monkeys to run into trees for leopard alarms, look up for eagle alarms, and look down for snake alarms. Adults call primarily to leopards, martial eagles, and pythons, but infants give leopard alarms to various mammals, eagle alarms to many birds, and snake alarms to various snakelike objects. Predator classification improves with age and experience.
|
|
|
|
Gibson, B. M., & Shettleworth, S. J. (2005). Place versus response learning revisited: tests of blocking on the radial maze. Behav Neurosci, 119(2), 567–586.
Abstract: Neurobiological and behavioral research indicates that place learning and response learning occur simultaneously, in parallel. Such findings seem to conflict with theories of associative learning in which different cues compete for learning. The authors conducted place+response training on a radial maze and then tested place learning and response learning separately by reconfiguring the maze in various ways. Consistent with the effects of manipulating place and response systems in the brain (M. G. Packard & J. L. McGaugh, 1996), well-trained rats showed strong place learning and strong response learning. Three experiments using associative blocking paradigms indicated that prior response learning interferes with place learning. Blocking and related tests can be used to better understand how memory systems interact during learning.
|
|
|
|
Skov-Rackette, S. I., & Shettleworth, S. J. (2005). What do rats learn about the geometry of object arrays? Tests with exploratory behavior. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process, 31(2), 142–154.
Abstract: Six experiments using habituation of exploratory behavior tested whether disoriented rats foraging in a large arena encode the shapes of arrays of objects. Rats did not respond to changes in position of a single object, but they responded to a change in object color and to a change in position of 1 object in a square array, as in previous research (e.g., C. Thinus-Blanc et al., 1987). Rats also responded to an expansion of a square array, suggesting that they encoded sets of interobject distances rather than overall shape. In Experiments 4-6, rats did not respond to changes in sense of a triangular array that maintained interobject distances and angles. Shapes of object arrays are encoded differently from shapes of enclosures.
|
|
|
|
Shettleworth, S. J., & Sutton, J. E. (2005). Multiple systems for spatial learning: dead reckoning and beacon homing in rats. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process, 31(2), 125–141.
Abstract: Rats homed with food in a large lighted arena. Without visual cues, they used dead reckoning. When a beacon indicated the home, rats could also use the beacon. Homing did not differ in 2 groups of rats, 1 provided with the beacon and 1 without it; tests without the beacon gave no evidence that beacon learning overshadowed dead reckoning (Experiment 1). When the beacon was at the home for 1 group and in random locations for another, there was again no evidence of cue competition (Experiment 2). Dead reckoning experience did not block acquisition of beacon homing (Experiment 3). Beacon learning and dead reckoning do not compete for predictive value but acquire information in parallel and are used hierarchically.
|
|
|
|
Gibson, B. M., & Shettleworth, S. J. (2003). Competition among spatial cues in a naturalistic food-carrying task. Learn Behav, 31(2), 143–159.
Abstract: Rats collected nuts from a container in a large arena in four experiments testing how learning about a beacon or cue at a goal interacts with learning about other spatial cues (place learning). Place learning was quick, with little evidence of competition from the beacon (Experiments 1 and 2). Rats trained to approach a beacon regardless of its location were subsequently impaired when the well-learned beacon was removed and other spatial cues identified the location of the goal (Experiment 3). The competition between beacon and place cues reflected learned irrelevance for place cues (Experiment 4). The findings differ from those of some studies of associative interactions between cue and place learning in other paradigms.
|
|
|
|
Gibson, B. M., Shettleworth, S. J., & McDonald, R. J. (2001). Finding a goal on dry land and in the water: differential effects of disorientation on spatial learning. Behav. Brain. Res., 123(1), 103–111.
Abstract: Two previous studies, Martin et al. (J. Exp. Psychol. Anim. Behav. Process. 23 (1997) 183) and Dudchenko et al. (J. Exp. Psychol. Anim. Behav. Process. 23 (1997) 194), report that, compared to non-disoriented controls, rats disoriented before testing were disrupted in their ability to learn the location of a goal on a dry radial-arm maze task, but that both groups learned at the same rate in the Morris water maze. However, the radial-arm maze task was much more difficult than the water maze. In the current set of experiments, we examined the performance of control and disoriented rats on more comparable dry land and water maze tasks. Compared to non-disoriented rats, rats that were disoriented before testing were significantly impaired in locating a goal in a circular dry arena, but not a water tank. The results constrain theoretical explanations for the differential effects of disorientation on different spatial tasks.
|
|
|
|
Krebs, J. R., Clayton, N. S., Hampton, R. R., & Shettleworth, S. J. (1995). Effects of photoperiod on food-storing and the hippocampus in birds. Neuroreport, 6(12), 1701–1704.
Abstract: Birds that store food have a relatively large hippocampus compared to non-storing species. The hippocampus shows seasonal differences in neurogenesis and volume in black-capped chikadees (Parus atricapillus) taken from the wild at different times of year. We compared hippocampal volumes in black-capped chickadees captured at the same time but differing in food-storing behaviour because of manipulations of photoperiod in the laboratory. Differences in food-storing behaviour were not accompanied by differences in the volume of the hippocampus. Hippocampal volumes also did not differ between two groups of a non-food-storing control species, house sparrows (Passer domesticus), exposed to the same conditions as the chickadees.
|
|
|
|
Shettleworth, S. J., & Juergensen, M. R. (1980). Reinforcement and the organization of behavior in golden hamsters: brain stimulation reinforcement for seven action patterns. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process, 6(4), 352–375.
Abstract: Golden hamsters were reinforced with intracranial electrical stimulation of the lateral hypothalamus (ICS) for spending time engaging in one of seven topographically defined action patterns (APs). The stimulation used as reinforcer elicited hoarding and/or feeding and supported high rates of bar pressing. In Experiment 1, hamsters were reinforced successively for digging, open rearing, and face washing. Digging increased most in time spent, and face washing increased least. Experiments 2-5 examined these effects further and also showed that “scrabbling,” like digging, was performed a large proportion of the time, almost without interruption, for contingent ICS but that scratching the body with a hindleg and scent-marking showed relatively little effect of contingent ICS, the latter even in an environment that facilitated marking. In Experiment 6, naive hamsters received ICS not contingent on behavior every 30 sec (fixed-time 30-sec schedule). Terminal behaviors that developed on this schedule were APs that were easy to reinforce in the other experiments, but a facultative behavior, face washing, was one not so readily reinforced. Experiment 7 confirmed a novel prediction from Experiment 6--that wall rearing, a terminal AP, would be performed at a high level for contingent ICS. All together, the results point to both motivational factors and associative factors being involved in the considerable differences in performance among different reinforced activities.
|
|
|
|
Shettleworth, S. J. (1978). Reinforcement and the organization of behavior in golden hamsters: Pavlovian conditioning with food and shock unconditioned stimuli. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process, 4(2), 152–169.
Abstract: The effects of Pavlovian conditioned stimuli (CSs) for food or shock on a variety of behaviors of golden hamsters were observed in three experiments. The aim was to see whether previously reported differences among the behaviors produced by food reinforcement and punishment procedures could be accounted for by differential effects of Pavlovian conditioning on the behaviors. There was some correspondence between the behaviors observed to the CSs and the previously reported effects of instrumental training. However, the Pavlovian conditioned responses (CRs) alone would not have predicted the effects of instrumental training. Moreover, CRs depended to some extent on the context in which training and testing occurred. These findings, together with others in the literature, suggest that the results of Pavlovian conditioning procedures may not unambiguously predict what system of behaviors will be most readily modified by instrumental training with a given reinforcer.
|
|
