ORGANIZATION IN MEMORY AND BEHAVIOR<sup>1</sup>

Shimp, Charles P.

doi:10.1901/jeab.1976.26-113

Cited by 183 publications

(102 citation statements)

References 73 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…By analogy with these earlier experiments (especially Shimp , the present shorter and longer temporal patterns may be assumed to have been automatized, chunked, and unitized; they, not their component keypecks, may reasonably be assumed to have been analytical units (see Shimp, 1975Shimp, , 1976Shimp, , 1979, for a discussion of this point). This complex adaptation of the local temporal patterning of behavior can be said to represent a kind of knowledge about the reinforcement contingency: this behavioral adaptation is part of what would be referred to were one to say that an organism knows what behavior reinforcement depends on.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

On metaknowledge in the pigeon: An organism’s knowledge about its own behavior

Shimp

1982

Animal Learning & Behavior

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In two experiments, pigeons pecked side keys in a discrete-trials setting in which shorter and longer runs of successive pecks on the left key before a switch to the right key occasionally produced, after a brief retention interval, a short-term memory probe for the most recent run length. In Experiment 1, a probe involved red and green side keys. A peck to a green (red) key was reinforced if the previous run length was shorter (longer). The dependent variable was the probability of a peck to the correct color. In Experiment 2, a probe involved an autoshaping procedure in which a response-noncontingent reinforcer was delivered after a 5-secpresentation of a green (red) center key if the previous run had been a shorter (longer) one. A reinforcer was not delivered when a red key followed a shorter pattern or a green key followed a longer pattern. The production of runs conformed to many previous molecular data on the way the local temporal patterning of behavior adapts to, that is, displays knowledge of, a reinforcement contingency. The probe results showed that a pigeon can report which of two run lengths it recently has emitted. Thus, a pigeon can, in a sense, describe its own adaptive behavior. Since the adaptive behavioral patterning on the center key may be said to represent knowledge, and since the probe behavior is a self-characterization or self-report by the organism about this knowledge, the probe behavior may be said to represent knowledge about knowledge, or metaknowledge. The data extend previous work on metaknowledge in the pigeon to a third type of adaptive temporal pattern of behavior, that is, run length (instead of response duration and interresponse time), and provide a second type of probe procedure, that is, autoshaping, by means of which a nonverbal organism can be asked what it knows about what it is doing to adapt to an environmental contingency.The relation between performance and self-reports of that performance is once again assuming a major theoretical role in human cognitive psychology (Brown, 1975; Gazzaniga, 1970;Jacoby & Dallas, 1981; Nisbett & Wilson, 1977). This research relies heavily on human subjects' verbal self-reports. Related experiments, however, can also be conducted with nonverbal animals (Nelson, 1974;Shimp, 1981;Ziriax & Silberberg, 1978). For example, Shimp (1981) arranged a setting in which a pigeon produced a behavior stream consisting mostly of shorter or longer interresponse times on a center key. This behavior revealed a rather precise adaptation to the reinforcement contingency for center-key pecks. Such adaptation constitutes, in a sense, a kind of knowledge on the part of the subject about what the centerkey reinforcement contingency is. In addition, symbolic matching-to-sample trials were occasionally arranged on colored side keys: a response to a particular colored side key was reinforced if the precedThis research was supported in part by NIMH Grant 16928.The author would like to thank Stephen J. Hutton for his expert help with the conduct of this research....

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

On metaknowledge in the pigeon: An organism’s knowledge about its own behavior

Shimp

1982

Animal Learning & Behavior

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Without hierarchical control, not even machines (e.g., robots that successively weld different parts of automobiles together) could function effectively. I argued (Shimp, 1976) that the work of Anderson and Bower (1973) and others (Tulving & Donaldson, 1972) sufficed to show the limits of linear contiguity theory. I would be happy to learn why molar theorists believe that these earlier arguments do not suffice.…”

Section: Molar Behaviorism Contiguity and Linear Chainingmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…First, the contiguity theory that molar behaviorism critiques is a very old creation and should not be associated with molecular analyses of the last 50 years or so. Advocates of modern molecular analyses have argued against contiguity theory and linear chaining for many years (e.g., Shimp, 1976). There is no more contiguity or linear chaining in shaping than there is in talking or singing or walking.…”

Section: Molar Behaviorism Contiguity and Linear Chainingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Toward the unification of molecular and molar analyses

Shimp

2013

BEHAV ANALYST

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Three categories of behavior analysis may be called molecular, molar, and unified. Molecular analyses focus on how manual shaping segments moment-to-moment behaving into new, unified, hierarchically organized patterns. Manual shaping is largely atheoretical, qualitative, and practical. Molar analyses aggregate behaviors and then compute a numerical average for the aggregate. Typical molar analyses involve average rate of, or average time allocated to, the aggregated behaviors. Some molar analyses have no known relation to any behavior stream. Molar analyses are usually quantitative and often theoretical. Unified analyses combine automated shaping of moment-to-moment behaving and molar aggregates of the shaped patterns. Unified controlling relations suggest that molar controlling relations like matching confound shaping and strengthening effects of reinforcement. If a molecular analysis is about how reinforcement organizes individual behavior moment by moment, and a molar analysis is about how reinforcement encourages more or less of an activity aggregated over time, then a unified analysis handles both kinds of analyses. Only theories engendered by computer simulation appear to be able to unify all three categories of behavior analysis.

show abstract

“…Shimp (1976) presented pigeons with a sequence of three white Xs on left-and right-side keys in a random order. After the sequence was presented, the pigeon was presented with one of three hues on the center key to peck, and once it had done so, it was presented with that same hue on both side keys.…”

Section: Sequence Discriminationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pigeons rank-order responses to temporally sequential stimuli

McMillan

Roberts

2013

Learn Behav

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We explored pigeons' ability to learn a particular sequence of stimuli in which the durations of each stimulus varied among trials, where the first response at the end of the sequence was reinforced. In Experiment 1A, we found that pigeons failed to use the whole sequence of three stimuli to predict food reinforcement, and instead responded only to the third, "rewarded" stimulus. When rewarded (1-2-3) and nonrewarded (2-1-3) sequences were used in a go/no-go procedure in Experiment 1B, however, pigeons showed a tendency to rank-order responding, with higher response rates to the second than to the first stimulus, as well as lower response rates to the third stimulus on nonrewardedsequence trials. In Experiment 2, pigeons showed rudimentary rank-ordering of five stimuli in sequence, with lower responding to the final stimulus on nonrewarded trials, even when the sequence presented differed from the rewarded sequence only in a reversal of the second and third stimuli. Pigeons were capable of using ordinal information in a temporal task, but only when that information was easily discriminable and led to explicit consequences (i.e., rewarded vs. nonrewarded sequences).Keywords Pigeons . Timing . Ordinal . Interval . Serial learning/memory In a typical environment over the course of a day, animals are required to produce multiple complex behaviors in response to a complicated array of spatiotemporally graded stimuli. Because animals cannot produce all behaviors at all times, and because stimuli are not available at all times, efficient performance requires organizing behavior in some manner in order to maximize reward. Although the laws of conditioning may explain responses made to single stimuli by animals in lab experiments, those explanations often do not extend to the ability to organize behaviors when more complex organizations of stimuli are encountered in a natural environment. For example, if an array of foraging patches replenish on temporally distinct schedules, how does an animal organize its foraging behavior to maximize its reward while minimizing effort and predation risk? Sequence discriminationAnimals have previously been shown in a wide variety of tasks to be able both to discriminate and to produce sequences of stimuli in particular orders. Shimp (1976) presented pigeons with a sequence of three white Xs on left-and right-side keys in a random order. After the sequence was presented, the pigeon was presented with one of three hues on the center key to peck, and once it had done so, it was presented with that same hue on both side keys. The subjects were reinforced for pecking the side key on which one white X had been presented in the sequence, according to the positional cue provided by the hue: first in sequence for red, second for blue, and third for white. For example, the initial sequence left-right-left would correspond to pecking left on a red test cue, right on a blue test cue, or left on a white test cue. Although pigeons' accuracy in this task was modulated by the retention interv...

show abstract

ORGANIZATION IN MEMORY AND BEHAVIOR¹

Cited by 183 publications

References 73 publications

On metaknowledge in the pigeon: An organism’s knowledge about its own behavior

On metaknowledge in the pigeon: An organism’s knowledge about its own behavior

Toward the unification of molecular and molar analyses

Pigeons rank-order responses to temporally sequential stimuli

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

ORGANIZATION IN MEMORY AND BEHAVIOR1

Cited by 183 publications

References 73 publications

On metaknowledge in the pigeon: An organism’s knowledge about its own behavior

On metaknowledge in the pigeon: An organism’s knowledge about its own behavior

Toward the unification of molecular and molar analyses

Pigeons rank-order responses to temporally sequential stimuli

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

ORGANIZATION IN MEMORY AND BEHAVIOR¹