Monitoring same/different discrimination behavior in time and space: Finding differences and anticipatory discrimination behavior

Brooks, Daniel I.; Wasserman, Edward A.

doi:10.3758/pbr.17.2.250

Cited by 5 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although unexpected in our study, pigeons’ tendency to respond to the change in display variability instead of changes in the individual objects is consistent with prior research on same-different discrimination learning (Brooks and Wasserman 2010; Wasserman, Young, and Cook 2004; Young and Wasserman 2001, 2001). This result, however, does not necessarily mean that pigeons store lists of features rather than bound objects in their VSTM.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

No evidence for feature binding by pigeons in a change detection task

Lazareva

Wasserman

2016

Behavioural Processes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We trained pigeons to respond to one key when two consecutive displays were the same as one another (no-change trial) and to respond to another key when the two displays were different from one another (change trial; change detection task). Change-trial displays were distinguished by a change in all three features (color, orientation, and location) of all four items presented in the display. Pigeons learned this change-no change discrimination to high levels of accuracy. In Experiments 1 and 2, we compared Replace trials in which one or two features were replaced by novel features to Switch trials in which the features were exchanged among the objects. Pigeons reported both Replace and Switch trials as “no-change” trials. In contrast, adult humans in Experiment 3 reported both types of trials as “change” trials and showed robust evidence for feature binding. In Experiment 4, we manipulated the total number of objects in the display and the number of objects that underwent change. Unlike people, pigeons showed strong control by the number of feature changes in the second display; pigeons’ failure to exhibit feature binding may therefore be attributed to their failure to attend to items in the displays as integral objects.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

No evidence for feature binding by pigeons in a change detection task

Lazareva

Wasserman

2016

Behavioural Processes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Coupled with the early performance advantage on different-cued trials, this result suggests that our pigeons’ choice responding may not have depended on sameness; instead, our pigeons’ responses could have been controlled by the different-item pair. Finding differences has previously been proposed by Young et al (2007) to be a promising psychological mechanism to explain many of the rich details of same–different discrimination in a wide variety of experimental tasks (e.g., Brooks & Wasserman, 2010). According to this model, subjects’ responses on same–different discrimination tasks are controlled by the detection of difference (or variability) in the presented pairs or arrays.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Two-item conditional same–different categorization in pigeons: Finding differences.

Díaz

O'Donoghue

Wasserman

2021

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Learning and Cogniti

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research on same-different categorization has shown that mastery of tasks of this kind can be strongly affected by the number of items in the training arrays-for both humans and nonhuman animals. Evidence for two-item same-different categorization in pigeons is decidedly mixed: although some investigations have succeeded, others have failed. To date, no research has documented successful conditional same-different categorization using just two items, nor has research explored how pigeons' responses in this paradigm might be influenced by perceptual characteristics of the training stimuli. Through a series of methodological modifications, we provide the first successful documentation that pigeons can perform two-item conditional same-different categorization to a high degree of accuracy; further, they can do so without the support of item repetition. We also show for the first time that the perceptual disparity between the items in pairs of different stimuli plays a key part in pigeons' same-different categorization performance.

show abstract

“…Brown and Cook (1986) suggested that the dynamics of performance in the RAM within trials are related to a process of signal discrimination rather than to the guidance provided by a cognitive map to direct spatial orientation (Brown, 1992;Hu & Amsel, 1995). Hence, anticipatory discriminative responses (Blough, 1959) are most likely occurring well before the moment of choice, and key aspects of this process can be revealed by examining the distribution of observation responses (see Brooks & Wasserman, 2010).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Thus, the analysis of behavioral patterns before a final response is emitted has been insightful to better understand discrimination and decision-making processes in humans (Spivey, Grosjean, & Knoblich, 2005) as well as nonhuman animals (Blough, 1959;Brooks & Wasserman, 2010;Skinner, 1965).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Spatial Memory in Hamsters (Mesocricetus auratus):Depleting/replenishing Environments and Pre-choiceBehaviors in the Radial Arm Maze

Rojas-Leguizamón¹,

Yáñez²,

Cabrera³

2019

IJCP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rodents’ spatial memory is traditionally assessed in the radial arm-maze (RAM). An accurate response pattern in the RAM is described as the tendency to visit a new arm after each choice (i.e. win-shift strategy). When this response pattern is found, it is said that the animal remembers the places visited. In the present experiment, 12 hamsters were assessed in the RAM under two conditions: the depleting condition, in which feeders were not rebaited after each visit; and the replenishing condition, in which, feeders were rebaited. We registered the number of new arms visited (hits), the time spent in the central area of the maze, and the behaviors emitted in the central area before each arm choice. Results showed that, regardless of condition, animals were significantly more likely to visit new arms. However, more pre-choice behaviors and a longer center time were observed in the depleting condition than in the replenishing one. It is discussed that hamsters have a win-shift strategy for hoarding behavior even when they do not need to remember the places visited, though they exhibited more pre-choice behaviors when searching for food in the depleting condition.

show abstract

Monitoring same/different discrimination behavior in time and space: Finding differences and anticipatory discrimination behavior

Cited by 5 publications

References 30 publications

No evidence for feature binding by pigeons in a change detection task

No evidence for feature binding by pigeons in a change detection task

Two-item conditional same–different categorization in pigeons: Finding differences.

Spatial Memory in Hamsters (Mesocricetus auratus):Depleting/replenishing Environments and Pre-choiceBehaviors in the Radial Arm Maze

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About