|
|
Miyashita, Y., Nakajima, S., & Imada, H. (2000). Differential outcome effect in the horse. J Exp Anal Behav, 74(2), 245–253.
Abstract: hree horses were trained with a discrimination task in which the color (blue or yellow) of a center panel signaled the correct (left or right) response (lever press). Reinforcing outcomes for the two correct color-position combinations (blue-left and yellow-right) were varied across phases. Discrimination performance was better when the combinations were differentially reinforced by two types of food (chopped carrot pieces and a solid food pellet) than when the combinations were randomly reinforced by these outcomes or when there was a common reinforcer for each of the correct combinations. However, the discrimination performance established by the differential outcome procedure was still 80% to 90% correct, and an analysis of two-trial sequences revealed that the stimulus color of the preceding trial interfered with discrimination performance on a given trial. Our demonstration of the differential outcome effect in the horse and its further analysis might contribute to more efficient control of equine behavior in the laboratory as well as in horse sports.
|
|
|
|
Miyashita, Y., Nakajima, S., & Imada, H. (1999). Panel-touch behavior of horses established by an autoshaping procedure. Psychol Rep, 85(3 Pt 1), 867–868.
Abstract: Panel-touch behavior of 3 geldings was successfully established by a response-termination type of autoshaping procedure. An omission or negative contingency introduced after the training of an animal, however, decreased the response rate to a near-zero level.
|
|
|
|
Nakajima, S. (2001). Failure of hierarchical conditional rule learning in the pigeon (Columba livia). Anim. Cogn., 3(4), 221–226.
Abstract: Pigeons were trained with a conditional discrimination task in three-key operant chambers. Choosing either the left or right key was followed by food according to combinations of three preceding events: (a) a houselight illumination condition (dark or light), (b) presence or absence of green flashes on the three keys, (c) a color (amber or blue) of the center sample key. With these 2ǶǶ event combinations, eight types of correct trials were prepared: (1) darkMno flashMamberMLEFT, (2) darkMno flashMblueMRIGHT, (3) darkMflashMamberMRIGHT, (4) darkMflashMblueMLEFT, (5) lightMno flashMamberMRIGHT, (6) lightMno flashMblueMLEFT, (7) lightMflashMamberMLEFT, and (8) lightMflashMblueMRIGHT. Seven of these eight types were used for training of a given bird, and then the remaining trial type was presented as the test. If the birds had learned the conditional structure of the events (the hierarchical switching rule), they would have responded correctly to the test type. However, they chose the opposite side key, suggesting that they had learned cue configuration or multiple rules to solve the task.
|
|
