Transitive inference in pigeons may result from differential tendencies to reject the test stimuli acquired during training

Zentall, Thomas R.; Peng, Daniel N.; Miles, Luke Harold

doi:10.1007/s10071-019-01257-2

Cited by 8 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These findings suggest that complexity can be added to the task by manipulating the properties of stimuli (colors vs. flags) and the amount of stimuli. However, Zentall et al (2019) did not find differences in the amount of sessions to reach the criterion when comparing colors and flags across phases, whereas we found differences in the amount of errors to reach the criterion. It is possible that probabilistic reinforcement and the complexity of stimuli have different effects on TI procedures.…”

Section: Other Experiments Involving Discriminationcontrasting

confidence: 96%

“…Further research showed the first evidence of TI in monkeys (McGonigle and Chalmers, 1977 ). After those initial findings, TI has been explored in several organisms, such as humans (Gillan, 1981 ; Galizio et al, 2017 ), children (Mou et al, 2013 ), monkeys (Jensen et al, 2019a ), crows (Lazareva et al, 2004 ), pigeons (Lazareva and Wasserman, 2012 ; Zentall et al, 2019 ), wasps (Tibbetts et al, 2019 ), and fish (Grosenick et al, 2007 ). More recent approaches have modeled TI in neural networks (Frank et al, 2003 ; Jensen et al, 2019b ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Probabilistic reinforcement precludes transitive inference: A preliminary study

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the basic verbal task from Piaget, when a relation of the form if A > B and B > C is given, a logical inference A > C is expected. This process is called transitive inference (TI). The adapted version for animals involves the presentation of a simultaneous discrimination between stimuli pairs. In this way, when A+B−, B+C−, C+D−, D+E− is trained, a B>D preference is expected, assuming that if A>B>C>D>E, then B>D. This effect has been widely reported using several procedures and different species. In the current experiment TI was evaluated employing probabilistic reinforcement. Thus, for the positive stimuli a .7 probability was administered and for the negative stimuli a .3 probability was administered. Under this arrangement the relation A>B>C>D>E is still allowed, but TI becomes more difficult. Five pigeons (Columba Livia) were exposed to the mentioned arrangement. Only one pigeon reached the criterion in C+D− discrimination, whereas the remaining did not. Only the one who successfully solved C+D− was capable of learning TI, whereas the others were not. Additionally, it was found that correct response ratios did not predict BD performance. Consequently, probabilistic reinforcement disrupted TI, but some positional ordering was retained in the test. The results suggest that TI might be affected by associative strength but also by the positional ordering of the stimuli. The discussion addresses the two main accounts of TI: the associative account and the ordinal representation account.

show abstract

Section: Other Experiments Involving Discriminationcontrasting

confidence: 96%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Probabilistic reinforcement precludes transitive inference: A preliminary study

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…E). Therefore, subjects could select the transitively correct item on novel test pairs (e.g., B vs. D) by selecting the item with the higher associative value (e.g., B), creating an appearance of an inferential process while instead relying on associative mechanisms (see also Zentall et al, 2019).…”

Section: Can Ti Performance Be Explained Solely Bymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Through these mechanisms, the relative associative values of the stimuli in the TI set could fall out such that they produce the same order as the transitively derived order of the stimuli (A > B > C > D > E). Therefore, subjects could select the transitively correct item on novel test pairs (e.g., B vs. D) by selecting the item with the higher associative value (e.g., B), creating an appearance of an inferential process while instead relying on associative mechanisms (see also Zentall et al, 2019).…”

Section: Can Ti Performance Be Explained Solely By Associative Proces...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Does cognition differ across species, and how do we know? Lessons from research in transitive inference.

Gazes¹,

Lazareva²

2021

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Learning and Cogniti

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Comparative psychologists study cognition by characterizing the behavior of individual species and explicitly comparing behavior across species. We use the extensive comparative literature on transitive inference (TI) as a case study to evaluate four central methodological questions that continue to be debated in the field of comparative psychology: 1) Are contextual variables sufficient to explain species differences in cognition? 2) Can cognitive performance be accounted for by associative processes alone? 3) Can we determine the cognitive mechanisms by which animals solve tasks? and 4) What is the role of ecologically driven hypotheses in comparative psychology? Although contextual variables and associative processes undeniably influence choice behavior in TI tasks, neither is sufficient to explain all performance. Instead, multiple distinct cognitive mechanisms, including associative processes, logical inference, and spatial representations, can and do result in successful TI performance. TI is not a unitary task solved using a single mechanism; multiple processes are recruited, with their degree of involvement dependent on context, species, and evolutionary pressures. This suggests that rather than asking whether animals possess a certain cognitive ability, research should focus on differences in when and how species employ tools from what is often a reasonably similar cognitive toolbox. We join others who have proposed that a main goal of comparative psychology should be to determine how animals solve cognitive tasks, through minimizing and studying the influence of contextual variables, evaluating the contributions of associative processes, clearly characterizing and testing alternative cognitive mechanisms, and using strong evolutionary hypotheses to guide predictions.

show abstract

“…More recent studies in TI have not reported such as dropout ratio in pigeons (five out of seven) during premise pair C + D- ( Lazareva and Wasserman, 2006 , 2012 ; Camarena et al, 2018 ; Zentall et al, 2019 ), but those procedures used probabilities of 0 and 1, which makes the discrimination easier than the one employed in our experiment. Other manipulations reported dropouts in subjects’ performance, for example, von Fersen et al (1991) used six pigeons exposed to all premise pairs in experiment one, but before the test, two subjects were excluded because they did not reach the 60% criterion.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 64%

Individual differences could explain the failure in transitive inference formation in pigeons using probabilistic reinforcement

Camarena

García-Leal²,

Saldaña-Hernández³

et al. 2023

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In propositional logic, it is stated that “for if A is predicated for every B, and B for every C, A must necessarily be predicated of every C”. Following a similar logical process, it can be said that If A > B and B > C, then A > C, this is called transitive inference (TI). Piaget developed a verbal task to evaluate TI in children. Subsequent studies adapted this task for animals using a conditioned discrimination between five-terms sequence of stimuli A + B-, B + C-, C + D-, and D + E-. If subjects prefer B over D during test, it is assumed that TI has occurred. In this experiment, we analyzed the effects of task complexity on TI by using a five-terms sequence of stimuli associated with probabilistic outcomes during training, in pigeons. Thus, both stimuli are reinforced in each pair but with different probability, 0.8 for + stimulus and 0.2 for the—stimulus. We found that performance during C + D- pair is impaired and preference in the test pair BD is affected. However, this impairment is dependent on individual differences in performance in C + D- pair. We compare our findings with previous research and conclude that Pavlovian mechanisms, as well as ordering of stimuli, can account for our findings.

show abstract

Transitive inference in pigeons may result from differential tendencies to reject the test stimuli acquired during training

Cited by 8 publications

References 19 publications

Probabilistic reinforcement precludes transitive inference: A preliminary study

Probabilistic reinforcement precludes transitive inference: A preliminary study

Does cognition differ across species, and how do we know? Lessons from research in transitive inference.

Individual differences could explain the failure in transitive inference formation in pigeons using probabilistic reinforcement

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About