Expectancies as mediators in the differential-reward conditional discrimination performance of pigeons

Peterson, Gail B.; Wheeler, Ruth L.; Armstrong, Gordon D.

doi:10.3758/bf03209614

Cited by 75 publications

(84 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…When u n ique outcomes were a rra nged i n the cond itiona l discriminative choice task, empirical data supported the notion that a unique outcome expectancy was formed for each unique outcome (e.g., Peterson & Trapold, 1980;Peterson, Wheeler, & Armstrong, 1978). Trapold and Overmier (1972) presumed unique outcome expectancies to form part of the particular discriminative stimulus complex of the discrimination task.…”

Section: The Differential Outcomes Effect and The Concept Of Outcome mentioning

confidence: 76%

Unique Outcome Expectations as a Training and Pedagogical Tool

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In everyday life, many of our behaviors are learned and reinforced through the availability of rewarding consequences. We work to be rewarded with desirable outcomes, and different people work for different rewards. Many of us have fond memories of our favorite teacher sticking a fancy star on an assignment well done and of how we would look forward to these stickers.A key aspect of real life is that we are constantly challenged with decisions to make and, almost without exception, every choice comes with a consequence. Very often, such consequences are unique to the particular choices we have made given the presenting problems. For example, when we want specialty coffee, we learn that we can get some at Starbucks. But

show abstract

Section: The Differential Outcomes Effect and The Concept Of Outcome mentioning

confidence: 76%

Unique Outcome Expectations as a Training and Pedagogical Tool

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Figure 7 shows the composite delay gradient that results from another discrimination index: DR = [1-.5(rate of response on nonmatching trials)/(rate of response on matching trials)] X 100-(cf. Wasserman, 1976 (Grant, 1981;Honig, 1978;Honig & Wasserman, 1981;Peterson, Wheeler, & Armstrong, 1978;Peterson, Wheeler, & Trapold, 1980). How could prospection be applied to performance in the go/no-go DMTS paradigm?…”

Section: Response Ratementioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of sample duration, retention interval, and passage of time in the test on pigeons’ matching-to-sample performance

Guttenberger

Wasserman

1985

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Four pigeons served as subjects in an experiment using the go/no-go delayed matching-to-sample paradigm. The go/no-go method was used because it permits the experimenter to track the time course of discriminative performance throughout the test period, unlike the conventional choice matching procedure. It was found that discriminative test performance increased with longer sample durations; performance decreased with longer retention intervals and also as time passed in the test period. The rate of forgetting was virtually the same when either the retention interval was lengthened or time elapsed in the test. These findings support a modified trace theory, which proposes that the sample stimulus trace decays at a constant rate from the point of sample offset, and that the decaying memory trace is repeatedly compared with the prevailing test stimulus as time passes in the test period.The delayed matching-to-sample (DMTS) procedure has been used extensively to study animal short-term memory. In this conditional discrimination procedure, a sample stimulus is presented for a specified period of time, after which a delay or retention interval is imposed, followed by presentation of one or more test stimuli. In the choice DMTS procedure, two or more test stimuli are presented and the subject must select the stimulus that matches the prior sample in order to earn reinforcement (Blough, 1959). Another kind of DMTS procedure involves presentation of only one test stimulus at a time. If the test stimulus matches the prior sample, reinforcement is scheduled; however, if the test stimulus does not match the sample, no reinforcement is delivered. The subject's "choice" here is whether or not to respond (Konorski, 1959;Wasserman, 1976). This second method can be called go/no-go DMTS.In the typical choice DMTS procedure, the test stimuli offset as soon as a response is made, whereas in the go/no-go task, the test stimulus may remain on for longer periods of time. Having the test stimulus stay on beyond the first response permits an evaluation of subjects' response rates. Wasserman (1976), for example, found that pigeons responded differentially on matching and nonmatching trials, with overall response rates higher on matching trials. The mean latencies to the first test keyThis research is based on the first author's thesis, submitted to the University of Iowa in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the MA degree. The authors wish to thank Dan Neunaber, Gary Schroeder, and Diane Chatlosh for their help with this project. The comments of the Editor and two anonymous reviewers were also of considerable value to the preparation of this report. Requests for reprints should be sent to E. A. Wasserman.

show abstract

“…A number of studies have demonstrated enhanced acquisition of discriminationand superior memory performance in pigeons when sample stimuli were associated with different trial outcomes (DO) following correct responding relative to when the outcomes were nondifferential (NDO). The DO effect has been demonstratedwith qualitativelydifferent reinforcers (Brodigan & Peterson, 1976;Edwards,Jagielo, Zentall, & Hogan, 1982;Honig, Matheson, & Dodd, 1984;Peterson, Wheeler, & Armstrong, 1978), reward versus no reward (Peterson, 1984;Peterson, Wheeler, & Trapold, 1980), and differential probability of reward (DeLong & Wasserman, 1981). Several explanations of the DO effect have been proposed and tested.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Reinforcement expectancy and trial spacing effects in delayed matching-to-sample by pigeons

Santi

Roberts

1985

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Four experiments assessed the role of reinforcement expectancies in the trial spacing effect obtained in delayed matching-to-sample by pigeons. In Experiment 1, a differential outcome (DO) group received reinforcement with a probability of 1.0 for correct comparison responses following one sample stimulus and a probability of 0.2 for correct comparison responses following the other sample stimulus. The nondifferential outcome (NDO) group received reinforcement with a probability of 0.6 for correct responses to either stimulus. While matching accuracy was higher for the DO group than for the NDO group, both groups showed an equivalent decline in accuracy as the intertrial interval (ITI) duration was decreased. However, within the DO group, ITI duration affected performance on low-probability-of-reinforcement trials but not on high-probabilityof-reinforcement trials. In Experiment 2, delay interval (DI) duration was 5, 10, or 15 sec and accuracy was higher for the DO group than for the NDO group at all DI durations. In addition, accuracy decreased similarly on high-and low-probability-of-reinforcement trials for the DO group as DI was increased. In Experiment 3, all birds were studied under DO conditions and ITI duration was manipulated along with DI duration. At the short DI duration, decreasing IT! duration had a detrimental effect on low-probability-of-reinforcement trials but no effect on high-probabilityof-reinforcement trials. At the long DI duration, decreasing ITI duration had detrimental effects on both types of trials. In Experiment 4, unsignaled IT! reinforcers disrupted accuracy when the DI was long and when the ITI was short. The applicability of scalar expectancy theory to these data is discussed.Numerous studies have shown that choice delayed matching-to-sample (DMTS) performance by pigeons is degraded by decreases in the temporal separation of trials (Grant, 1975;Hogan, Edwards, & Zentall, 1981;Maki, Moe, & Bierley, 1977). The poorer performance obtained with short intertrial intervals (ITI) was initially viewed as being due to competing memories from previous trials (Grant, 1975;Maki et al., 1977). However, this explanation has been called into question by several recent findings. Roberts (1980) found that short ITls disrupted performance on homogeneous DMTS trials as well as on standard DMTS trials. Homogeneous DMTS trials present the same sample stimulus on each trial, eliminating the possibility of competing sample memories. Although there is evidence that memories on trial n -1 do carry over the ITI and affect performance on trial n, both Roberts (1980) and Roitblat and Scopatz (1983) have shown that these are memories of the choice made on the previous trial rather than of the sample stimulus presented on the trial n -1. More importantly, neither study found any evidence that the carryover of memories between trials interacts with ITI duration, thus weakening explanations of the trial spacing effect based on proactive inhibition (PI). Finally,

show abstract

Expectancies as mediators in the differential-reward conditional discrimination performance of pigeons

Cited by 75 publications

References 14 publications

Unique Outcome Expectations as a Training and Pedagogical Tool

Unique Outcome Expectations as a Training and Pedagogical Tool

Effects of sample duration, retention interval, and passage of time in the test on pigeons’ matching-to-sample performance

Reinforcement expectancy and trial spacing effects in delayed matching-to-sample by pigeons

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About