|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
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., 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.
|
|
|
|
Hogan, D. E., Zentall, T. R., & Pace, G. (1983). Control of pigeons' matching-to-sample performance by differential sample response requirements. Am J Psychol, 96(1), 37–49.
Abstract: Pigeons were trained on a matching-to-sample task in which sample hue and required sample-specific observing behavior provided redundant, relevant cues for correct choices. On trials that involved red and yellow hues as comparison stimuli, a fixed-ratio 16 schedule (FR 16) was required to illuminate the comparisons when the sample was red, and a differential-reinforcement-of-low-rates 3-sec schedule (DRL 3-sec) was required when the sample was yellow. On trials involving blue and green hues as comparison stimuli, an FR 16 schedule was required when the sample was blue and a DRL 3-sec schedule was required when the sample was green. For some pigeons, a 0-sec delay intervened between sample offset and comparison onset, whereas other pigeons experienced a random mixture of 0-sec and 2-sec delay trials. Test trial performance at 0-sec delay indicated that sample-specific behavior controlled choice performance considerably more than sample hue did. Test performance was independent of whether original training involved all 0-sec delay trials or a mixture of 0-sec and 2-sec delays. Sample-specific observing response requirements appear to facilitate pigeons' matching-to-sample performance by strengthening associations between the observing response and correct choice.
|
|
