Gibson, B. M., Juricevic, I., Shettleworth, S. J., Pratt, J., & Klein, R. M. (2005). Looking for inhibition of return in pigeons. Learn Behav, 33(3), 296–308.
Abstract: We conducted four experiments in order to investigate whether pigeons' responses to a recently attended (i.e., recently pecked) location are inhibited. In Experiments 1 and 2, stimulus displays were similar to those used in studies of inhibition of return (IOR) with humans; responses to cued targets tended to be facilitated rather than inhibited. In Experiments 3 and 4, birds were presented with stimulus displays that mimicked clusters of small grains and were relatively localized, which should have been more appropriate for detecting IOR in pigeons. The results from these experiments again provided evidence for facilitation of responding to cued targets, rather than for IOR.
|
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.
|
|
Shettleworth, S. J. (2007). Animal behaviour: planning for breakfast. Nature, 445(7130), 825–826.
|
|
Shettleworth, S. J. (2004). Cognitive science: rank inferred by reason. Nature, 430(7001), 732–733.
|
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.
|
Sekuler, A. B., Lee, J. A., & Shettleworth, S. J. (1996). Pigeons do not complete partly occluded figures. Perception, 25(9), 1109–1120.
Abstract: One of the most common obstacles to object perception is the fact that objects often occlude parts of themselves and parts of other objects. Perceptual completion has been studied extensively in humans, and researchers have shown that humans do complete partly occluded objects. In an effort to understand more about the mechanisms underlying completion, recent research has extended the study of perceptual completion to other mammalian species. Monkeys and mice also seem to complete two-dimensional representations of partly occluded objects. The present study addresses the question of whether this capacity generalizes to a nonmammalian species, the pigeon (Columba livia). The results point to a limit of the generalizability of perceptual completion: pigeons do not complete partly occluded figures.
|
Sole, L. M., Shettleworth, S. J., & Bennett, P. J. (2003). Uncertainty in pigeons. Psychon Bull Rev, 10(3), 738–745.
Abstract: Pigeons classified a display of illuminated pixels on a touchscreen as sparse or dense. Correct responses were reinforced with six food pellets; incorrect responses were unreinforced. On some trials an uncertain response option was available. Pecking it was always reinforced with an intermediate number of pellets. Like monkeys and people in related experiments, the birds chose the uncertain response most often when the stimulus presented was difficult to classify correctly, but in other respects their behavior was not functionally similar to human behavior based on conscious uncertainty or to the behavior of monkeys in comparable experiments. Our data were well described by a signal detection model that assumed that the birds were maximizing perceived reward in a consistent way across all the experimental conditions.
|
|
Hampton, R. R., Healy, S. D., Shettleworth, S. J., & Kamil, A. C. (2002). Neuroecologists' are not made of straw. Trends. Cognit. Sci., 6(1), 6–7.
|
|
Shettleworth, S. J. (2000). Cognitive ecology: field or label? Trends. Ecol. Evol, 15(4), 161.
|
