When offered a choice between 2 alternatives, animals sometimes prefer the option yielding less food. For instance, pigeons and starlings prefer an option that on 20% of the trials presents a stimulus always followed by food, and on the remaining 80% of the trials presents a stimulus never followed by food (the Informative Option), over an option that provides food on 50% of the trials regardless of the stimulus presented (the Noninformative Option). To explain this suboptimal behavior, it has been hypothesized that animals ignore (or do not engage with) the stimulus that is never followed by food in the Informative Option. To assess when pigeons attend to the stimulus usually not followed by food, we increased the probability of reinforcement, p, in the presence of that stimulus. Across 2 experiments, we found that the value of the Informative Option decreased with p. To account for the results, we added to the Reinforcement Rate Model (and also to the Hyperbolic Discounting Model) an engagement function, f(p), that specified the likelihood the animal attends to a stimulus followed by reward with probability p, and then derived the model predictions for 2 forms of f(p), a linear function, and an all-or-none threshold function. Both models predicted the observed findings with a linear engagement function: The higher the probability of reinforcement after a stimulus, the higher the probability of engaging the stimulus, and, surprisingly, the less the value of the option comprising the stimulus. (PsycINFO Database Record
To investigate the coding strategies that pigeons may use in a temporal discrimination tasks, pigeons were trained on a matching-to-sample procedure with three sample durations (2s, 6s and 18s) and two comparisons (red and green hues). One comparison was correct following 2-s samples and the other was correct following both 6-s and 18-s samples. Tests were then run to contrast the predictions of two hypotheses concerning the pigeons' coding strategies, the multiple-coding and the single-code/default. According to the multiple-coding hypothesis, three response rules are acquired, one for each sample. According to the single-code/default hypothesis, only two response rules are acquired, one for the 2-s sample and a "default" rule for any other duration. In retention interval tests, pigeons preferred the "default" key, a result predicted by the single-code/default hypothesis. In no-sample tests, pigeons preferred the key associated with the 2-s sample, a result predicted by multiple-coding. Finally, in generalization tests, when the sample duration equaled 3.5s, the geometric mean of 2s and 6s, pigeons preferred the key associated with the 6-s and 18-s samples, a result predicted by the single-code/default hypothesis. The pattern of results suggests the need for models that take into account multiple sources of stimulus control.
To better understand short-term memory for temporal intervals, we re-examined the choose-short effect. In Experiment 1, to contrast the predictions of two models of this effect, the subjective shortening and the coding models, pigeons were exposed to a delayed matching-to-sample task with three sample durations (2, 6 and 18 s) and retention intervals ranging from 0 to 20 s. Consistent with the coding model, the results suggested a sudden forgetting of memories for duration. In Experiment 2, to test the confusion hypothesis, the characteristics of the ITI and the retention interval differed. Contrary to the confusion hypothesis, a choose-short effect was obtained. In both experiments, a test with only two of the three comparison keys was performed. The results suggest three effects that may be controlling the birds' responses: stimulus generalization when no retention interval is present; an increase in random responding at longer retention intervals; and, similarly, an increase in preference for the "short-sample" key at longer retention intervals.
In temporal discriminations tasks, more than one stimulus may function as a time marker. We studied two of them in a matching-to-sample task, the sample keylight and the houselight that signaled the intertrial interval (ITI). One group of pigeons learned a symmetrical matching-to-sample task with two samples (2 s or 18 s of a center keylight) and two comparisons (red and green side keys), whereas another group of pigeons learned an asymmetrical matching-to-sample task with three samples (2 s, 6 s, and 18 s) and two comparisons (red and green). In the asymmetrical task, 6-s and 18-s samples shared the same comparison. In a subsequent retention test, both groups showed a preference for the comparison associated with the longer samples, a result consistent with the hypothesis that pigeons based their choices on the duration elapsed since the offset of the houselight (i.e., sample duration + retention interval). Results from two no-sample tests further corroborated the importance of the ITI illumination as a time marker: When the ITI was illuminated, the proportion of choices correlated positively with the retention interval; when the ITI was darkened, choices fell to random levels. However, the absolute value of choice proportions suggested that the sample stimulus was also a time marker. How multiple stimuli acquire control over behavior and how they combine remains to be worked out.
In experimental tasks that involve stimuli that vary along a quantitative continuum, some choice biases are commonly found. Take, for instance, a matching-to-sample task where animals must, following the presentation of sample stimuli (that differ in duration), choose between two or more comparison stimuli. In tests where no sample is presented there is usually a bias towards the comparison that is correct following the shortest sample. To examine some aspects of these choice biases, pigeons were trained in a symbolic matching-to-sample task with two durations of keylight as samples, where key pecking had to be maintained during sample presentation. Firstly, even though animals were required to attend to the sample, a preference for the "short" comparison in nosample testing was found. This result disproves an account where this effect was hypothesized to happen due to non-programmed learning resulting from the animals failing to attend to some trials. Secondly, even though a bias for "short" was found in both no-sample and delay testing, the extent of the biases differed between tasks, thus suggesting that forgetting the sample presented during a delay does not necessarily land the animal in a state similar to presenting no sample at all to begin with.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.