A case for restricted-domain relational learning

Wright, Anthony A.; Katz, Jeffrey S.

doi:10.3758/pbr.16.5.907

Cited by 14 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The pigeons' lack of change-detection transfer to shape, size, or location is evidence for restricted-domain relational learning like that shown in same/different tasks (e.g., Elmore et al, 2009; Katz, Sturz, & Wright, 2010; Wright & Katz, 2009). While pigeons in the present experiments learned to detect changes in color, and were unimpaired by novel colors or novel shapes which changed in color, their inability to detect shape, location and size changes, indicates that their change-detection learning was restricted to the color domain.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 92%

Change detection by rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta) and pigeons (Columba livia).

Elmore

Magnotti

Katz

et al. 2012

Journal of Comparative Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two monkeys learned a color change-detection task where two colored circles (selected from a 4-color set) were presented on a 4×4 invisible matrix. Following a delay, the correct response was to touch the changed colored circle. The monkeys' learning, color transfer, and delay transfer were compared to a similar experiment with pigeons. Monkeys, like pigeons, showed full transfer to four novel colors, and to delays as long as 6.4 s, suggesting they remembered the colors as opposed to perceptual based attentional capture process that may work at very short delays. The monkeys and pigeons were further tested to compare transfer to other dimensions. Monkeys transferred to shape and location changes, unlike the pigeons, but neither species transferred to size changes. Thus, monkeys were less restricted in their domain to detect change than pigeons, but both species learned the basic task and appear suitable for comparative studies of visual short-term memory.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 92%

Change detection by rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta) and pigeons (Columba livia).

Elmore

Magnotti

Katz

et al. 2012

Journal of Comparative Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While prior failures of transfer to novel stimuli do not necessarily indicate evidence of item-specific learning in our task, we hasten to add this does not mean that failures to transfer to novel stimuli in other research are not evidence of item-specific learning. However, if one does not test for item-specific learning one cannot be sure (Katz, Bodily, & Wright, 2008; Wright, 1997; Wright & Katz, 2009). How the domain becomes restricted is largely unknown for our pigeons or monkeys and will likely vary across species and tasks.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Our research has focused on conditions that promote either item-specific or relational learning in human and nonhuman species (e.g., Elmore, Wright, Rivera, & Katz, 2009; Katz et al, 2007; Wright & Katz, 2006; Wright & Katz, 2009). To explore these conditions, we have utilized matching-to-sample and same/different (S/D) tasks.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Such transfer suggested relational learning despite a lack of novel-stimulus transfer or abstract-concept learning (Elmore et al, 2009). A fifth bit of evidence was that pigeons and rhesus monkeys initially trained with half the pairs from an 8-item set transferred to stimulus inversions of the training items and to pairs not used in training despite a lack of novel-stimulus transfer or abstract-concept learning (Wright & Katz, 2009). …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Domain is a moving target for relational learning

Katz

Sturz

Wright

2010

Behavioural Processes

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The domain for relational learning was manipulated by varying the training set size for pigeons that had learned the same/different (S/D) concept. Six pigeons that had learned a S/D task with pairs of pictures with a set size of 1,024 picture items had their training set size reduced to 8 items. Training on the reduced 8-item set was followed by transfer testing that was repeated four times. Transfer performance following reduction of the training set to 8 items was less than it had been when the pigeons were trained with the 1,024-item set, but 25.8% above chance. This partial abstract-concept learning remained constant over the four tests with novel stimuli. The results show that a broad domain established by a large expanding training set can once again become restricted by further training with a small training set.

show abstract

“…Apparently, the pigeons’ domain becomes resistant to growth following learning with small training sets. We have referred to this effect as restricted-domain relational learning (Elmore et al, 2009; Katz & Wright, 2009; Wright, 2010; Wright & Katz, 2009; Wright & Lickteig, 2010). Restricted-domain carryover effects may be a common property (to a greater or lesser degree) of transfer and generalization—a reluctance to perform outside of one’s comfort zone—once something has been learned.…”

Section: Functional Relationships For Investigating Learningmentioning

confidence: 99%

Functional relationships for investigating cognitive processes

Wright

2013

Behavioural Processes

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Functional relationships (from systematic manipulation of critical variables) are advocated for revealing fundamental processes of (comparative) cognition—through examples from my work in psychophysics, learning, and memory. Functional relationships for pigeon wavelength (hue) discrimination revealed best discrimination at the spectral points of hue transition for pigeons—a correspondence (i.e., functional relationship) similar to that for humans. Functional relationships for learning revealed: Item-specific or relational learning in matching to sample as a function of the pigeons’ sample-response requirement, and same/different abstract-concept learning as a function of the training set size for rhesus monkeys, capuchin monkeys, and pigeons. Functional relationships for visual memory revealed serial position functions (a 1st order functional relationship) that changed systematically with retention delay (a 2nd order relationship) for pigeons, capuchin monkeys, rhesus monkeys, and humans. Functional relationships for rhesus-monkey auditory memory also revealed systematic changes in serial position functions with delay, but these changes were opposite to those for visual memory. Functional relationships for proactive interference revealed interference that varied as a function of a ratio of delay times. Functional relationships for change detection memory revealed (qualitative) similarities and (quantitative) differences in human and monkey visual short term memory as a function of the number of memory items. It is concluded that these findings were made possible by varying critical variables over a substantial portion of the manipulable range to generate functions and derive relationships.

show abstract

A case for restricted-domain relational learning

Cited by 14 publications

References 21 publications

Change detection by rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta) and pigeons (Columba livia).

Change detection by rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta) and pigeons (Columba livia).

Domain is a moving target for relational learning

Functional relationships for investigating cognitive processes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About