Pigeon visual memory capacity.

Vaughan, William; Greene, Sharon L.

doi:10.1037/0097-7403.10.2.256

Cited by 164 publications

(136 citation statements)

References 36 publications

(31 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

127

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…First, it distinguishes learning from memory. Second, it denies a growing body of evidence that animals other than humans remember the events of learning trials (e.g., Fagot & Cook, 2006;Vaughan & Greene, 1984;Voss, 2009).In contrast to the classical theories of learning, instance theories of human memory identify the individual experience (i.e., the instance) as the primitive unit of knowledge and treat learning as the accumulation and deployment of instances from memory. Brooks (1978Brooks ( , 1987 was among the first to champion the view.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

An instance theory of associative learning

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We present and test an instance model of associative learning. The model, Minerva-AL, treats associative learning as cued recall. Memory preserves the events of individual trials in separate traces. A probe presented to memory contacts all traces in parallel and retrieves a weighted sum of the traces, a structure called the echo. Learning of a cue-outcome relationship is measured by the cue's ability to retrieve a target outcome. The theory predicts a number of associative learning phenomena, including acquisition, extinction, reacquisition, conditioned inhibition, external inhibition, latent inhibition, discrimination, generalization, blocking, overshadowing, overexpectation, superconditioning, recovery from blocking, recovery from overshadowing, recovery from overexpectation, backward blocking, backward conditioned inhibition, and second-order retrospective revaluation. We argue that associative learning is consistent with an instance-based approach to learning and memory.Keywords Associative learning . Memory . Instance theory . Exemplar theoryIn a simple associative learning procedure, a cue, A, is presented followed by an outcome, X. With experience, presentation of A elicits anticipation of X. The growth of anticipation is the process of associative learning.Typically, associative learning is modeled as a gradual accrual of excitatory and inhibitory connections between stimulus units. Associative strength is treated as summative; so the strength of an association between stimuli on trial t stands for the entire history of learning. This scheme for understanding learning is well described in the RescorlaWagner model (Rescorla & Wagner, 1972) and the many theories that follow from it.Whereas summative theories provide insight into learning, they make an unreasonable assumption. Namely, they deny that the learner remembers the events of separate learning trials-a problem that Miller, Barnet, and Grahame (1995) call the assumption of path independence. The problem is important. First, it distinguishes learning from memory. Second, it denies a growing body of evidence that animals other than humans remember the events of learning trials (e.g., Fagot & Cook, 2006;Vaughan & Greene, 1984;Voss, 2009).In contrast to the classical theories of learning, instance theories of human memory identify the individual experience (i.e., the instance) as the primitive unit of knowledge and treat learning as the accumulation and deployment of instances from memory. Brooks (1978Brooks ( , 1987 was among the first to champion the view. Medin and Schaffer (1978) were among the first to formalize it (see also Reed, 1972). Hintzman's (1986Hintzman's ( , 1988 Minerva 2 model and Nosofsky's (1986) generalized context model are classic formalizations of the view. Kruschke's (1992Kruschke's ( , 1996Kruschke's ( , 2001) and Logan's (1988Logan's ( , 2002 Learn Behav (2012) 40:61-82 DOI 10.3758/s13420-011-0046-2 In this article, we build on previous efforts (Jamieson, Hannah & Crump 2010) to show that an instance model of ass...

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

An instance theory of associative learning

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In these studies, pigeons were rewarded for pecking at projected images that contained the target object (e.g., a tree), and were not rewarded for pecking at images in which the target was absent. Typically, pigeons learned these discriminations rapidly, showed good transfer to novel instances of the target category, and remembered these discriminations over periods of many months (e.g., Vaughan & Greene, 1984). Pigeons seemed to treat these two-dimensional projected images as if they represented "real" three-dimensional objects.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Pigeons discriminate pictures of a geographic location

Wilkie

Willson

Kardal

1989

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Four pigeons previously trained to home to the roof of the University of British Columbia psychology building and 4 nonhoming pigeons were trained to discriminate between two sets of color slides projected onto a pecking panel of a Skinner box. One slide set consisted of photographs taken in the vicinity of the psychology building; the other set consisted of similar views taken at locations not previously visited by the homing subjects. All subjects were rewarded for pecking during slides from the first but not the second set. Every few sessions, new "Home" and "Away" slides were introduced during transfer tests. In a final transfer test, a completely new tray of Home and Away slides was introduced. The homing pigeons were slightly (but not statistically significantly) better at discriminating Home from Away slides. The implications of these results for understanding pigeons' homing behavior, concept attainment, and spatial memory are discussed.Pigeons appear to be able to form conceptual discriminations based on photographs of such natural objects as people, fish, water, trees, and leaves (see Herrnstein, 1984, for a review). In these studies, pigeons were rewarded for pecking at projected images that contained the target object (e.g., a tree), and were not rewarded for pecking at images in which the target was absent. Typically, pigeons learned these discriminations rapidly, showed good transfer to novel instances of the target category, and remembered these discriminations over periods of many months (e.g., Vaughan & Greene, 1984). Pigeons seemed to treat these two-dimensional projected images as if they represented "real" three-dimensional objects. Both Cabe (1976) and Lumsden (1977) have shown that pigeons transfer discriminations of actual objects to photographs of the same objects. In addition, Looney and Cohen (1974) have shown that pigeons will attack photographs of conspecifics in situations in which aggressive responding is normally elicited. Perhaps the most convincing evidence that birds treat photographic projections as if these images were actual objects comes from a study of Roberts and Weigl (1984). In that study, investigators tested wild-eaught dark-eyedjuncos in a test chamber that contained two perches mounted on end walls containing projection screens. Images of this species' distinctive summer and winter habitats were projected onto the two screens, and the subjects' preference for an image was measured by recording how much time they spent This research was supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. John Zahradnik kindly donated racing homing pigeons whose offspring served as subjects in this research. C. Von Borman greatly assisted with the data analysis. Send correspondence regarding this paper to Donald M. Wilkie, Department of Psychology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia V6T IV7, Canada, or the following E-Mail address: userdonw@mtsg.ubc.ca. on the perch in front of the respective image. Roberts and Weigl found that winter-...

show abstract

“…And it has recently been suggested that these birds use an associative memory system to locate their caches (Brodbeck et aI., 1992). Although we currently have no evidence that pigeons may remember an equivalent large number of food-location associations, we do know that pigeons can remember multiple slidefood associations (Macphail et aI., 1992;Vaughan & Greene, 1984), and this knowledge, together with our own finding, suggests that differences in performance on spatial associative memory tasks may be due to quantitative rather than qualitative differences in the memory system underlying performance.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 71%

“…In the wild, food-storing birds are thought to recall the location of numerous different cache sites, and the possibility exists that differences in spatial memory performance on this type of task would only be detected when subjects are required to recall multiple sites. Macphail et al (1992) demonstrated that pigeons could retain 20 briefly trained slide-outcome associations for a period of 24 h, and Vaughan and Greene (1984) demonstrated that pigeons can retain hundreds of slide-outcome associations for extended periods of time when they are exposed to a consistent relationship between a particular slide and a particular outcome on multiple occasions. In Experiment 2, then, we sought evidence that pigeons could also retain multiple spatiallocation-food associations.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

More evidence of robust spatial associative memory in the pigeon,Columba livia

Wilkie

Willson

1995

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Willsonand Wilkie(1993) developed a novel procedure for assessing pigeons' memory for the spatiallocation of food. Only one of four locations (consisting of an illuminated pecking key and grain feeder) provided food each day.Over days, different locations provided food. The pigeons' tendency to revisit the location that was profitable on the previous day demonstrated memory for food-spatiallocation associations over a period of 24 h, retention longer than previously reported for this species. This basic finding was replicated and extended in three experiments. Experiment 1 demonstrated that location-food discriminations were also remembered well when established with successive rather than concurrent procedures. Experiment 2 demonstrated that pigeons can remember two location-food associations over 24 h. Experiment 3 showed that the discrimination training inherent in this paradigm is important for retention; retention was impaired when only the rewarded location was presented. Overall, this research suggests that cross-species differences in spatial memory performance may be due to quantitative rather than qualitative differences in the memory system underlying performance.We have recently developed a new procedure to study pigeons' spatial memory (Willson & Wilkie, 1993). Development of this task was motivated by the persistent reporting of rather short-lived spatial memory in pigeons tested on a variety of spatial memory tasks (e.g., delayed alternation- Olson & Maki, 1983; radial maze-Roberts & Van Veldhuizen, 1985; walking maze-Spetch, 1990; delayed matching-Wilkie & Summers, 1982; keypeck analogue of the radial maze-sZentall, Steirn, & Jackson-Smith, 1990). The often short-lived memory in this species stands in contrast to that reported for several species of food-caching birds (e.g., Sherry, 1984). However, an examination of the tasks on which pigeons' spatial memory has been assessed reveals that they are all working memory tasks (Honig, 1978). In contrast, food-caching birds are thought to use a spatial-location-food associative memory to locate their caches (Brodbeck, Burack, & Shettleworth, 1992;Shettleworth, 1985; but see Olson, 1991, for a direct comparison between pigeons and food-storing birds on a working memory task). Spatial associative The task is straightforward. Pigeons are tested in a large, clear Plexiglas box placed on a table in a well-lit room containing a variety ofvisual cues. A key and grain feeder are located on each of the four walls of the box. Sessions are short (approximately 16 min) and consist of illumination of all four keys, only one of which (randomly selected) produces response-contingent food. Food becomes available on the selected key after the passage of a brief interval at the start of the session. Pigeons quickly discover the rewarded key and persist in responding to that location during the initial nonrewarded period of the next session, even when sessions are separated by 72 h (Willson & Wilkie, 1993). This perseverative responding in the face of extended delays ...

show abstract

Pigeon visual memory capacity.

Cited by 164 publications

References 36 publications

An instance theory of associative learning

An instance theory of associative learning

Pigeons discriminate pictures of a geographic location

More evidence of robust spatial associative memory in the pigeon,Columba livia

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About