Oddity learning in the pigeon: Effect of negative instances, correction, and number of incorrect alternatives

Abstract

Pigeons have difficulty learning a standard oddity task involving two colors and three stimulus positions. In Experiment 1, performance on standard noncorrection trials was compared with performance on (1) rerun correction trials in which errors resulted in trial repetition, (2) noncorrection trials with added "negative instance" trials involving presentation of three stimuli, all of which matched, and (3) a combination of correction and added negative instance trials. Results indicated that negative instances, but not correction trials, significantly facilitated oddity performance. In Experiment 2, Phase 1, number of stimulus positions lit (three or five) was factorially manipulated with number of positions on which the odd stimulus could appear (three or five). An increase in number of positions lit, but not number of positions that could be odd, facilitated performance. In Phase 2, birds transferred from trials with five positions lit to four positions lit performed significantly better than controls; but in Phase 3, the same birds did not perform significantly better than controls when transferred to trials with three positions lit. In both experiments, analysis of performance as a function of response position indicated better performance at the end of each display than in the middle. These results, together with the group performance differences in Experiment 2, suggest that oddity learning in pigeons involves a size, or number, discrimination.

Computer models solving intelligence test problems: Progress and implications

“…They were first introduced in [161,162] as a non-verbal test in the study of comparative animal learning (Zentall et al [161] assessed pigeon's intelligence). The oddity task has also been used for cross-cultural testing to probe the conceptual primitives of geometry in the Mundurukú, an isolated Amazonian indigenous group, for which Deheane et al [163] designed a visual oddity task.…”

Transfer of Matching‐to‐figure Samples in the Pigeon

“…They suggested that negative trials may facilitate transfer and concept learning in nonhumans. Zentall et al (1980), employing the OFS paradigm, reported similar results. Fujita (1983) and Urcuioli (1977) also suggested that the establishment of conceptual behavior (as evidenced by transfer to novel stimuli) is facilitated when the animals are taught to not respond during certain trials.…”

“…This is not surprising; several papers have suggested that transfer can be facilitated by initially training subjects with a large number of stimuli (e.g. Holmes, 1979;Honig, 1965;Levine & Harlow, 1959;Malott & Malott, 1970;Mishkin & Delacour, 1975;Pisacreta & Witt, 1983;Urcuioli & Nevin, 1975), or by increasing the number of incorrect comparison stimuli (e.g., Nissen & McCulloch, 1937;Pastore, 1954;Zentall et al, 1980). For example, Zentall et al (1980) reported 65 to 80% matching accuracies with three response keys, and 85 to 95% accuracy levels when five keys were employed.…”

“…Holmes, 1979;Honig, 1965;Levine & Harlow, 1959;Malott & Malott, 1970;Mishkin & Delacour, 1975;Pisacreta & Witt, 1983;Urcuioli & Nevin, 1975), or by increasing the number of incorrect comparison stimuli (e.g., Nissen & McCulloch, 1937;Pastore, 1954;Zentall et al, 1980). For example, Zentall et al (1980) reported 65 to 80% matching accuracies with three response keys, and 85 to 95% accuracy levels when five keys were employed. Sands and Wright (1980) trained monkeys to push a "T" lever one way if two consecutive stimuli (fruit, flowers, animals, or people) were the same, and to push the lever in the other direction if the stimuli were different.…”

“…Urcuioli (1977) used the same procedure to demonstrate transfer of oddityfrom-sample (OFS) matching. In two related papers, Zentall and Hogan (1978), and Zentall, Hogan, and Edwards (1980) trained birds on both the MTS and OFS tasks. Some birds were exposed to negative instances -trials with two incorrect comparison stimuli.…”