|
|
Zentall, T. R. (1999). Support for a theory of memory for event duration must distinguish between test-trial ambiguity and actual memory loss. J Exp Anal Behav, 72(3), 467–472.
Abstract: Staddon and Higa's (1999) trace-strength theory of timing and memory for event duration can account for pigeons' bias to “choose short” when retention intervals are introduced and to “choose long” when, following training with a fixed retention interval, retention intervals are shortened. However, it does not account for the failure of pigeons to choose short when the intertrial interval is distinct from the retention interval. That finding suggests that stimulus generalization (or ambiguity) between the intertrial interval and the retention interval may result in an effect that has been attributed to memory loss. Such artifacts must be eliminated before a theory of memory for event duration can be adequately tested.
|
|
|
|
Urcuioli, P. J., DeMarse, T. B., & Zentall, T. R. (1998). Transfer across delayed discriminations: II. Differences in the substitutability of initial versus test stimuli. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process, 24(1), 47–59.
Abstract: In 2 experiments, pigeons were trained on, and then transferred to, delayed simple discriminations in which the initial stimuli signalled reinforcement versus extinction following a retention interval. Experiment 1 showed that discriminative responding on the retention test transferred to novel test stimuli that had appeared in another delayed simple discrimination but not to stimuli having the same reinforcement history off-baseline. By contrast, Experiment 2 showed that performances transferred to novel initial stimuli whether they had been trained on-baseline or off-baseline. These results suggest that the test stimuli in delayed simple discriminations acquire control over responding only in the memory task itself. On the other hand, control by the initial stimuli, if coded as outcome expectancies, does not require such task-specific training.
|
|
|
|
Zentall, T. R., Sherburne, L. M., Roper, K. L., & Kraemer, P. J. (1996). Value transfer in a simultaneous discrimination appears to result from within-event pavlovian conditioning. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process, 22(1), 68–75.
Abstract: When pigeons acquire a simple simultaneous discrimination, some of the value acquired by the S+ transfers to the S-. The mechanism underlying this transfer of value was examined in three experiments. In Experiment 1, pigeons trained on two simultaneous discriminations (A + B- and C +/- D-) showed a preference for B over D. This preference was reduced, however, following the devaluation of A. In Experiment 2, when after the same original training, value was given to D, the pigeons' preference for C did not significantly increase. In Experiment 3, when both discriminations involved partial reinforcement (S +/-), A + C- training resulted in a preference for B over D, whereas B + D- training resulted in a preference for A over C. Thus, simultaneous discrimination training appears to result in bidirectional within-event conditioning involving the S+ and S-.
|
|
|
|
Zentall, T. R., & Sherburne, L. M. (1994). Role of differential sample responding in the differential outcomes effect involving delayed matching by pigeons. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process, 20(4), 390–401.
Abstract: The role of differential sample responding in the differential outcomes effect was examined. In Experiment 1, we trained pigeons on a one-to-many matching task with differential sample responding required. Differential outcomes were associated with samples and comparisons, with comparisons only, or with neither samples nor comparisons. Slopes of delay functions for trials with pecked versus nonpecked samples suggested use of a single-code-default strategy in the nondifferential-outcomes group but not in the differential-outcomes groups. In Experiment 2, differential sample responding and differential outcomes were manipulated independently. Again, there were significant differences in the relative slopes of the delay functions. Results suggest that differential outcomes exert their effect independently of differential sample responding.
|
|
|
|
Roper, K. L., & Zentall, T. R. (1993). Directed forgetting in animals. Psychol Bull, 113(3), 513–532.
Abstract: Directed-forgetting research with animals suggests that animals show disrupted test performance only under certain conditions. Important variables are (a) whether during training, the cue to forget (F cue) signals nonreward (i.e., that the trial is over) versus reward (i.e., that reinforcement can be obtained) and (b) given that reinforcement can be obtained on F-cue trials, whether the post-F-cue response pattern is compatible with the baseline memory task. It is proposed that some findings of directed forgetting can be attributed to trained response biases, whereas others may be attributable perhaps to frustration-produced interference. It is suggested that directed forgetting in animals should be studied using procedures similar to those used to study directed forgetting in humans. This can be accomplished by presenting, within a trial, both to-be-remembered and to-be-forgotten material.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Skov-Rackette, S. I., Miller, N. Y., & Shettleworth, S. J. (2006). What-where-when memory in pigeons. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process, 32(4), 345–358.
Abstract: The authors report a novel approach to testing episodic-like memory for single events. Pigeons were trained in separate sessions to match the identity of a sample on a touch screen, to match its location, and to report on the length of the retention interval. When these 3 tasks were mixed randomly within sessions, birds were more than 80% correct on each task. However, performance on 2 different tests in succession after each sample was not consistent with an integrated memory for sample location, time, and identity. Experiment 2 tested binding of location and identity memories in 2 different ways. The results were again consistent with independent feature memories. Implications for tests of episodic-like memory are discussed.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Shettleworth, S. J. (2005). Taking the best for learning. Behav. Process., 69(2), 147–9; author reply 159–63.
Abstract: Examples of how animals learn when multiple, sometimes redundant, cues are present provide further examples not considered by Hutchinson and Gigerenzer that seem to fit the principle of taking the best. “The best” may the most valid cue in the present circumstances; evolution may also produce species-specific biases to use the most functionally relevant cues.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
