Post-choice information processing by pigeons

Abstract

In a conditional discrimination (matching-to-sample), a sample is followed by two comparison stimuli, one of which is correct, depending on the sample. Evidence from previous research suggests that if the stimulus display is maintained following an incorrect response (the so-called penalty-time procedure), acquisition by pigeons is facilitated. The present research tested the hypothesis that the penalty-time procedure allows the pigeons to review and learn from the maintained stimulus display following an incorrect choice. It did so by including a penalty-time group for which, following an incorrect choice, the sample changed to match the incorrect comparison, thus providing the pigeons with post-choice 'misinformation.' This misinformation group acquired the matching task significantly slower than the standard penalty-time group (that had no change in the sample following an error). Furthermore, acquisition of matching by a control group that received no penalty time fell midway between the other two groups, suggesting that the pigeons did not merely take more care in making choices because of the aversiveness of penalty-time. Thus, it appears that in the acquisition of matching-to-sample, when the stimulus display is maintained following an incorrect choice, the pigeons can review or acquire information from the display. This is the first time that such an effect has been reported for a nonhuman species.

Midsession reversal learning: why do pigeons anticipate and perseverate?

“…With this procedure, errors merely result in termination of the stimuli and a 5-s ITI, prior to the start of the next trial. Previous research with matching-to-sample procedures has shown that if comparison choice errors result in maintaining the stimulus display for several seconds (a form of added time out), acquisition of matching can be facilitated (Strength & Zentall, 1991; Martin & Zentall, 2005). For this reason, in Experiment 2, we added a group for which there was mild negative punishment for errors (the failure of the S− stimulus to turn off for a limited time).…”

From Eyewitness to Academic Contexts: Examining the Effect of Misinformation in First and Second Languages

“…Participants who read inconsistent information (e.g., reading about a yield sign after seeing a stop sign) were more likely to recall misinformation (the yield sign) in the test phase than did those who read consistent information (e.g., reading about a stop sign after seeing a stop sign), showing that information encoded after the event affected participants' memories (an example of retroactive interference). The misinformation effect has been found across age groups (Loftus, Levidow, & Duensing, ; Roebers & Schneider, ), across species in a conditional discrimination task that involved post‐choice misinformation (Martin & Zentall, ), and when directly (such as face‐to‐face interaction; e.g., Paterson & Kemp, ) and indirectly (such as reading; e.g., Loftus et al, ) encountering sources of misinformation (for a comparison of direct and indirect interaction, see Blank et al, ).…”

Performance of pigeons (Columba livia) on maze problems presented on the LCD screen: In search for preplanning ability in an avian species.

“…For us, pigeons seem a suitable species for such comparative purposes because much is known about their behavioral and cognitive processes (Cook, 2001; Zeigler & Bischof, 1993), and this accumulation of findings would help us to create a new experimental paradigm that we could directly apply to other species as well. In pigeons, Martin & Zentall (2005) showed that, in a matching-to-sample task, the presentation of stimulus display after incorrect choices facilitates the acquisition of the task, which suggests that they might have reviewed and learned from the postchoice information. However, whether pigeons preplan or mentally rehearse their behavior before starting to execute it seems yet to be examined.…”