Abstract: The bidirectional control procedure was used to determine whether pigeons (Columba livia) would imitate a demonstrator that pushed a sliding screen for food. One group of observers saw a trained demonstrator push a sliding screen door with its beak (imitation group), whereas 2 other groups watched the screen move independently (possibly learning how the environment works) with a conspecific either present (affordance learning with social facilitation) or absent (affordance learning alone). A 4th group could not see the screen being pushed (sound and odor control). Imitation was evidenced by the finding that pigeons that saw a demonstrator push the screen made a higher proportion of matching screen pushes than observers in 2 appropriate control conditions. Further, observers that watched a screen move without a demonstrator present made a significantly higher proportion of matching screen pushes than would be expected by chance. Thus, these pigeons were capable of affordance learning.

Abstract: In the bidirectional control procedure, observers are exposed to a conspecific demonstrator responding to a manipulandum in one of two directions (e.g., left vs. right). This procedure controls for socially mediated effects (the mere presence of a conspecific) and stimulus enhancement (attention drawn to a manipulandum by its movement), and it has the added advantage of being symmetrical (the two different responses are similar in topography). Imitative learning is demonstrated when the observers make the response in the direction that they observed it being made. Recently, however, it has been suggested that when such evidence is found with a predominantly olfactory animal, such as the rat, it may result artifactually from odor cues left on one side of the manipulandum by the demonstrator. In the present experiment, we found that Japanese quail, for which odor cues are not likely to play a role, also showed significant correspondence between the direction in which the demonstrator and the observer push a screen to gain access to reward. Furthermore, control quail that observed the screen move, when the movement of the screen was not produced by the demonstrator, did not show similar correspondence between the direction of screen movement observed and that performed by the observer. Thus, with the appropriate control, the bidirectional procedure appears to be useful for studying imitation in avian species.

Abstract: It has been proposed that memory for personal experiences (episodic memory, rather than semantic memory) relies on the conscious review of past experience and thus is unique to humans. In an attempt to demonstrate episodic-like memory in animals, we first trained pigeons to respond to the (nonverbal) question “Did you just peck or did you just refrain from pecking?” by training them on a symbolic matching task with differential responding required to the two line-orientation samples and reinforcing the choice of a red comparison if they had pecked and the choice of a green comparison if they had not pecked. Then, in Experiment 1, after providing the conditions for (but not requiring) the pigeons to peck at one new stimulus (a yellow hue) but not at another (a blue hue), we tested them with the new hue stimuli and the red and green comparisons. In Experiment 2, we tested the pigeons with novel stimuli (a circle, which they spontaneously pecked, and a dark response key, which they did not peck) and the red and green comparisons. In both experiments, pigeons chose the comparison appropriate to the response made to the test stimulus. Thus, the pigeons demonstrated that they could remember specific details about their past experiences, a result consistent with the notion that they have the capacity for forming episodic-like memories.

Abstract: Divergent choose-absence retention functions typically found in pigeons following presence/absence-sample matching have been attributed to the development of a single-code/default coding strategy. However, such effects may result from adventitious differential responding to the samples. In Experiment 1, retention functions were divergent only when differential sample responding could serve as the basis for comparison choice. In Experiment 2, when pecking did not occur during the retention interval, a choose-absence bias was found, but when pecking occurred during the retention interval, a choose-presence bias resulted. In Experiment 3, positive transfer was found when a stimulus associated with the absence of pecking replaced the absence sample but not when a stimulus associated with pecking replaced the presence sample. Thus, presence/absence-sample matching may not encourage the development of a single-code/default coding strategy in pigeons.

Abstract: The traditional approach to the study of selective attention in animal discrimination learning has been to ask if animals are capable of the central selective processing of stimuli, such that certain aspects of the discriminative stimuli are partially or wholly ignored while their relationships to each other, or other relevant stimuli, are processed. A notable characteristic of this research has been that procedures involve the acquisition of discriminations, and the issue of concern is whether learning is selectively determined by the stimulus dimension defined by the discriminative stimuli. Although there is support for this kind of selective attention, in many cases, simpler nonattentional accounts are sufficient to explain the results. An alternative approach involves procedures more similar to those used in human information-processing research. When selective attention is studied in humans, it generally involves the steady state performance of tasks for which there is limited time allowed for stimulus input and a relatively large amount of relevant information to be processed; thus, attention must be selective or divided. When this approach is applied to animals and alternative accounts have been ruled out, stronger evidence for selective or divided attention in animals has been found. Similar processes are thought to be involved when animals search more natural environments for targets. Finally, an attempt is made to distinguish these top-down attentional processes from more automatic preattentional processes that have been studied in humans and other animals.