|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Ratcliffe, J. M., Fenton, M. B., & Shettleworth, S. J. (2006). Behavioral flexibility positively correlated with relative brain volume in predatory bats. Brain Behav Evol, 67(3), 165–176.
Abstract: We investigated the potential relationships between foraging strategies and relative brain and brain region volumes in predatory (animal-eating) echolocating bats. The species we considered represent the ancestral state for the order and approximately 70% of living bat species. The two dominant foraging strategies used by echolocating predatory bats are substrate-gleaning (taking prey from surfaces) and aerial hawking (taking airborne prey). We used species-specific behavioral, morphological, and ecological data to classify each of 59 predatory species as one of the following: (1) ground gleaning, (2) behaviorally flexible (i.e., known to both glean and hawk prey), (3) clutter tolerant aerial hawking, or (4) open-space aerial hawking. In analyses using both species level data and phylogenetically independent contrasts, relative brain size was larger in behaviorally flexible species. Further, relative neocortex volume was significantly reduced in bats that aerially hawk prey primarily in open spaces. Conversely, our foraging behavior index did not account for variability in hippocampus and inferior colliculus volume and we discuss these results in the context of past research.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Shettleworth, S. J., & Sutton, J. E. (2005). Multiple systems for spatial learning: dead reckoning and beacon homing in rats. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process, 31(2), 125–141.
Abstract: Rats homed with food in a large lighted arena. Without visual cues, they used dead reckoning. When a beacon indicated the home, rats could also use the beacon. Homing did not differ in 2 groups of rats, 1 provided with the beacon and 1 without it; tests without the beacon gave no evidence that beacon learning overshadowed dead reckoning (Experiment 1). When the beacon was at the home for 1 group and in random locations for another, there was again no evidence of cue competition (Experiment 2). Dead reckoning experience did not block acquisition of beacon homing (Experiment 3). Beacon learning and dead reckoning do not compete for predictive value but acquire information in parallel and are used hierarchically.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Jones, J. E., Antoniadis, E., Shettleworth, S. J., & Kamil, A. C. (2002). A comparative study of geometric rule learning by nutcrackers (Nucifraga columbiana), pigeons (Columba livia), and jackdaws (Corvus monedula). J Comp Psychol, 116(4), 350–356.
Abstract: Three avian species, a seed-caching corvid (Clark's nutcrackers; Nucifraga columbiana), a non-seed-caching corvid (jackdaws; Corvus monedula), and a non-seed-caching columbid (pigeons; Columba livia), were tested for ability to learn to find a goal halfway between 2 landmarks when distance between the landmarks varied during training. All 3 species learned, but jackdaws took much longer than either pigeons or nutcrackers. The nutcrackers searched more accurately than either pigeons or jackdaws. Both nutcrackers and pigeons showed good transfer to novel landmark arrays in which interlandmark distances were novel, but inconclusive results were obtained from jackdaws. Species differences in this spatial task appear quantitative rather than qualitative and are associated with differences in natural history rather than phylogeny.
|
|
|
|
Shettleworth, S. J., & Westwood, R. P. (2002). Divided attention, memory, and spatial discrimination in food-storing and nonstoring birds, black-capped chickadees (Poecile atricapilla) and dark-eyed juncos (Junco hyemalis). J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process, 28(3), 227–241.
Abstract: Food-storing birds, black-capped chickadees (Poecile atricapilla), and nonstoring birds, dark-eyed juncos (Junco hyemalis), matched color or location on a touch screen. Both species showed a divided attention effect for color but not for location (Experiment 1). Chickadees performed better on location than on color with retention intervals up to 40 s, but juncos did not (Experiment 2). Increasing sample-distractor distance improved performance similarly in both species. Multidimensional scaling revealed that both use a Euclidean metric of spatial similarity (Experiment 3). When choosing between the location and color of a remembered item, food storers choose location more than do nonstorers. These results explain this effect by differences in memory for location relative to color, not division of attention or spatial discrimination ability.
|
|
|
|
Shettleworth, S. J., & Juergensen, M. R. (1980). Reinforcement and the organization of behavior in golden hamsters: brain stimulation reinforcement for seven action patterns. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process, 6(4), 352–375.
Abstract: Golden hamsters were reinforced with intracranial electrical stimulation of the lateral hypothalamus (ICS) for spending time engaging in one of seven topographically defined action patterns (APs). The stimulation used as reinforcer elicited hoarding and/or feeding and supported high rates of bar pressing. In Experiment 1, hamsters were reinforced successively for digging, open rearing, and face washing. Digging increased most in time spent, and face washing increased least. Experiments 2-5 examined these effects further and also showed that “scrabbling,” like digging, was performed a large proportion of the time, almost without interruption, for contingent ICS but that scratching the body with a hindleg and scent-marking showed relatively little effect of contingent ICS, the latter even in an environment that facilitated marking. In Experiment 6, naive hamsters received ICS not contingent on behavior every 30 sec (fixed-time 30-sec schedule). Terminal behaviors that developed on this schedule were APs that were easy to reinforce in the other experiments, but a facultative behavior, face washing, was one not so readily reinforced. Experiment 7 confirmed a novel prediction from Experiment 6--that wall rearing, a terminal AP, would be performed at a high level for contingent ICS. All together, the results point to both motivational factors and associative factors being involved in the considerable differences in performance among different reinforced activities.
|
|
