A failure to obtain magnetic discrimination in the pigeon

Abstract

Six pigeons were trained on a multiple-concurrent schedule. During both multiple-schedule components, two response keys were available. In Component 1, responses to the left key were reinforced on a variable-interval 45-sec schedule, whereas responses to the right key were not reinforced. In Component 2, these contingencies were reversed. Following each reinforcer, the component next presented was chosen randomly with equal probability. The two components were differentially signaled by presentation of various stimuli during Component 1. Over the course of the experiment, these stimuli were various intensities of light, a noise, and various fluctuating and static magnetic fields. While subjects showed good discrimination of the light and noise stimuli, no stimulus control using the magnetic fields was obtained.Researchers have reported that Earth's magnetic field serves as a stimulus that affects behavior in a variety of species. Studies have shown that mud bacteria (Kalmijn & Blakemore, 1978), bees (Gould, Kirschvink, Deffeyes, & Brines, 1280), flies (Becker, 1963), elasmobranch fish (Kalmijn, 1978), salamanders (Phillips & Alder, 1978), and even humans (Baker, 1980) may be sensitive to magnetic fields. However, the most extensive research in this area has been conducted using avians, in particular, the pigeon.Observations and experiments in the field have provided the bulk of the evidence that pigeons are sensitive to magnetic fields. Such studies have investigated the effects of regional magnetic anomalies on the flight paths of trained homing pigeons (e.g., Walcott, 1978), the effects of attaching magnets to pigeons on subsequent homing (Keeton, 1972;Walcott & Green, 1974), the effects of transportation in inversed vertical magnetic fields on homing (Kiepenheurer, 1978), and the effects of magnetic "storms" on pigeon flight (e.g., Keeton, Larkin, & Windsor, 1974). Naturally, these results have led to laboratory experiments aiming to provide quantitative data on this phenomenon, such as measures of the sensitivity of pigeons to changes in the intensity or the angle of an applied magnetic field. However, the success of this research has been extremely limited.Reille (1968) reported successful classical conditioning of the cardiac rhythm of a pigeon to stimuli consisting of either static or fluctuating magnetic fields of approximately Earth strength. While the actual level of the response was low, the positive result was encouraging. Kreithen and Keeton (1974) and Beaugrand (1976), using 97 and 38 pigeons, respectively, and employing a variety of magnetic fields as stimuli, failed to produce any conditioning of heart-rate activity.Other experimenters have attempted to use magnetic fields as stimuli in operant conditioning paradigms. Meyer and Lambe (1966) used a magnetic field as the discriminative stimulus between variable-interval (VI) 6O-sec schedules and extinction (Ext) components of a multiple schedule. They found no differential control of behavior by the magnetic stimulus. Bookman (1977) and M. Davison...

The magnetic compass of domestic chickens,Gallus gallus

“…Directional training has for a long time failed to elicit stable directional tendencies in birds (e.g. Katz, 1978;Griffin, 1982;Alsop, 1987), as birds do not easily respond to changes in the direction of the magnetic field around them.…”

Maze Learning and Recall in a Weakly Electric Fish, Mormyrus rume proboscirostris Boulenger (Mormyridae, Teleostei)1

“…Such discrepancies in an organism’s responsiveness are not unusual as they are often context related. Classical conditioning experiments with carrier pigeons, for example, have mostly yielded negative results when trying to corroborate the birds’ demonstrated use of the earth’s magnetic field in long‐range navigation (Alsop 1987; Couvillon et al. 1992; Wiltschko & Wiltschko 1996).…”

Pigeons fail to detect low-frequency magnetic fields

“…It now includes absolute failures to demonstrate magnetic sensitivity in studies involving four sorts of reinforcers (food, water, shock, and shock avoidance) and five responses (heart rate, pecking, drinking movements, walking, and flying) (Alsop, 1987;Beaugrand, 1976Beaugrand, , 1977Cannan et al, 1987;Delius & Emmerton, 1978;Griffin, 1982;Kreithen & Keeton, 1974;McIsaac & Kreithen, 1987;Meyer & Lambe, 1966;Orgel & Smith, 1954). A great many other negative studies have remained unpublished (see Alsop, 1987;Bookman, 1977;Delius & Emmerton, 1978;McIsaac & Kreithen, 1987;Neville, 1955). Although there is no doubt that pigeons find it difficult to form certain unnatural associations (Moore, 1973), we know of no case in which a proven exteroceptive sensitivity has remained impossible to demonstrate clearly with conditioning techniques.…”

“…The more recent literature, however, has been mixed. Studies employing conditioning (psychophysical) techniques have continued to give primarily negative results (Alsop, 1987;Beaugrand, 1976Beaugrand, , 1977Carman, Walker, & Lee, 1987;Delius & Emmerton, 1978;Griffin, 1982;Kreithen & Keeton, 1974;McIsaac & Kreithen, 1987; see also Meyer & Lambe, 1966;Neville, 1955;Orgel & Smith, 1954;cf. Bookman, 1977;Reille, 1968).…”