Choice in Quail Neonates: The Origins of Generalized Matching

Abstract

Although newborns have surprised scientists with their learning skills, proficiency on concurrent schedules of reinforcement requires (in effect) the ability to integrate and compare behaviorconsequence relations over time. Can very young animals obey the quantitative relation that applies to such repeated choices, the generalized matching law? The provenance of the skill is not well understood, and this study provides the first investigation of matching in neonates. Northern bobwhite (Colinus virginianus) hatchlings pecked left and right targets on a touchscreen for heat delivery on a concurrent variable-interval reinforcement schedule. Within 5 days after hatching, the chicks showed sensitivity levels significantly greater than zero, but short of typical adult levels. However, stable sequential patterns emerged almost immediately, including a consistent choose-rich tendency after unreinforced responses, one that entails some degree of temporal integration. These exploratory data suggest that the basic ability to match develops quickly in this precocial species, but that more extensive experience may be required to achieve the higher sensitivities typically seen in adults.

Choice behavior of pigeons (Columba livia), college students, and preschool children (Homo sapiens) in the Monty Hall dilemma.

“…When the behaviors of nonhumans and humans are studied in similar choice situations, similar behavior patterns are frequently found. For instance, numerous studies on choice with concurrent variable interval schedules have found that the response proportions of both nonhumans (e.g., Herrnstein, 1961; Schneider & Lickliter, 2010) and humans (e.g., Ecott & Critchfield, 2004; McDowell & Caron, 2010) tend to approximate the reinforcement proportions, such that their response distributions can be described by the generalized matching law (Baum, 1979; Davison & McCarthy, 1988). In choices between immediate and delayed reinforcers, both nonhumans (e.g., Mazur & Biondi, 2009; Woolverton, Myerson, & Green, 2007) and humans (e.g., Green, Fry, & Myerson, 1994) display patterns of delay discounting that are well described by a hyperbolic equation (see Madden & Bickel, 2010; Odum, 2011).…”

Lesions of the nucleus accumbens core modulate development of matching behavior

“…Trained animals, with considerable previous experience in the different reinforcement rates of the options, are quick to adapt to unpredictable changes in relative reinforcement rates [ 7 - 17 ]. However, few attempts have been made to explore the patterns of acquisition of matching behavior in experimentally naïve animals [ 18 , 19 ].…”