Odd-item search by pigeons: Method, instrumentation, and uses

Blough, Donald S.

doi:10.3758/bf03201403

Cited by 33 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The target varied in location, and pecks to it brought food reinforcement on an intermittent schedule. An infrared detector system (e.g., D. S. Blough, 1986) enabled the computer to determine the location of the response peck and the time between display onset and the peck, which defined the search RT. Two versions of this task defined the target in somewhat different ways.…”

Section: Visual Searchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Form perception and attention in pigeons

Blough

1997

Animal Learning & Behavior

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This report selectively reviews the authors' research on stimulus control by visual forms. Most studies employed visual search of computer-generated displays, and the main behavioral measure was search reaction time. Pigeons classify simple line forms much as do humans, and there was some evidence for feature extraction, though a search asymmetry probe failed to identify several putative features. Dimensional analysis revealed a new quantitative relation between similarity and the probability of detecting a target. It also identified candidates for integral and separable stimulus dimensions. Similarity and set-size variables influenced the extent to which attention was engaged. Further studies addressed the manner in which attention is focused, revealing relationships between priming and search images. In these cases, attention to a selected form is probably driven by a top-down assessment of predictability.Birds seem to interact with their visual world much as do humans, and it is easy to assume that they see things as we do. Psychophysical studies of basic' visual functions provide some support for this view, though such things as avian acuity, temporal resolution, and color vision are also unique in suggestive ways (Donovan, 1978;Granda & Maxwell, 1979). More complex aspects ofbirds' visual perception have been less well understood, but recent studies ofsuch matters as visual categorization, texture discrimination, and visual illusions are beginning to scratch the surface ofour ignorance (cf. Stebbins & Berkley, 1990;Wasserman, 1993;Zentall, 1993). It is not our purpose to review this literature but rather to summarize some ofour own contributions to it. The present paper concentrates on processes revealed by visual search for targets defined by shape or form. Naturally, the extensive literature on human form perception influenced the course ofthis research, but it also has roots in other areas, such as foraging, and has developed its own logic over time. Our goal has been the general understanding of relevant perceptual processes; pigeon-human comparison is considered where it serves that purpose.The bird's natural reliance on visual information recommends it for perceptual research. About 20 years ago, we began to harness the pigeon's skillful foraging to a visual search paradigm in which displays and search reaction times (RTs) were computer controlled and recorded (D. S. Blough, 1979). Inthe research reviewed here, we used thisThe preparation of this report was supported in part by National Science Foundation Grant BNS-9407269. The authors thank many long-term members ofthe psychology department staffat Brown University for their help over the 18-year course of this research. Correspondence should be addressed to either author at Department of Psychology, Campus Box 1853, Brown University, Providence, RI 02912 (e-mail: donald_blough@brown.edu, or patricia_blough@brown.edu).Note: This article is one of those occasionally invited by the editor in which authors have the opportunity to provide an overview of ...

show abstract

Section: Visual Searchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Form perception and attention in pigeons

Blough

1997

Animal Learning & Behavior

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Computercontrolled testing chambers are highly attractive because of their flexibility in stimulus creation and presentation and their increased precision in measuring behavior (Allan, 1992;Blough, 1986;Morrison & Brown, 1990;Pisacreta & Rilling, 1987). The increased use of touchscreens has also been driven by the implicit assumption that these techniques more readily promote learning in comparison with the use of traditional pecking keys or response levers.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Over the last decade or so, the use of computer-presented stimuli and touchscreens for the measurement of stimuluscontrolled behavior has dramatically increased in psychology laboratories, especially in the testing of pigeons (e.g., Blough, 1986;Cook, 1992), primates (e.g., Bhatt & Wright, 1992), and humans (e.g., Huguenin, 2000). Computercontrolled testing chambers are highly attractive because of their flexibility in stimulus creation and presentation and their increased precision in measuring behavior (Allan, 1992;Blough, 1986;Morrison & Brown, 1990;Pisacreta & Rilling, 1987).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Touchscreen-enhanced visual learning in rats

Cook

Geller

Zhang

et al. 2004

Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The efficiency of traditional levers and of modern touchscreen technology for training rats on a computerized visual discrimination was studied in a series of observations. When compared with a leverbased discrimination procedure, the use of touchscreens supported the faster development of signal tracking behavior and acquisition of a two-stimulus simultaneous visual discrimination. It did not affect the final level of accuracy. Factors related to spatial proximity of the responses with the stimuli, signtracking, and increased ease of touchscreen motor responses were suggested as possible reasons for the touchscreen training advantage. This increased efficiency allows large numbers of animals to be tested quickly, a necessary requirement for studies involving genetic and physiological interventions.

show abstract

“…These experiments use the odd-item search method (D. S. Blough, 1986): In a display with one unique target and many identical distractors, the sUbject's task is to find the target. All possible pairings (as targets and distractors) of a rather large set of forms appear in each session.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Quantitative relations between visual search speed and target-distractor similarity

Blough

1988

Perception & Psychophysics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Three pigeons worked on visual search tasks in which arrays of 32 small forms appeared in computer-driven displays. Their task was to peck at a unique target among identical distractors; the main dependent variable was the speed with which this target was found. The target and distractor forms for each trial were chosen from a set offorms (usually 16); in most experiments, all possible pairs of forms appeared in each experimental session. Six experiments were run; each yielded a matrix of mean reaction times (RTs), one for each of the form pairs. Such matrices were subject to multidimensional scaling, from which best-fitting interform distances were determined. In four experiments with disparate form sets, Euclidean distance between pairs of forms in multidimensional space was found to approximate an exponential decay function of RT-K, where K was a constant set for each subject. Two additional experiments showed that RT distributions for single-form pairs were well fit by the convolution of a fixed distribution, approximately Gaussian, and an exponential distribution whose decay parameter varied with interform similarity. The exponential decay parameter may be taken to reflect momentary detection probability, and interform distance in multidimensional space may be taken to measure similarity. Thus, the data as a whole suggest an exponential relation between the probability of detecting a target and the similarity of that target to its surrounding distractors. This relationship is analogous to Shepard's law of generalization, which states an exponential relation between response probability and similarity.Stimulus similarity is important to most psychological research, if only because we wish to specify the range of stimulus conditions over which any finding may hold. The similarity of visual forms is currently of particular interest in the context of research on pattern recognition. However, there are rather few data relating quantitative measures of similarity to measures of form perception. This article attempts to provide such data for the relation between similarity and the speed of visual search, using pigeons as subjects. Two sets of experiments are described. The first relates target-distractor similarity to mean search reaction time (RT) for several form sets. The second attempts to identify the component of RT that is affected by target-distractor similarity.The first set of experiments follows Shepard (e.g., 1957) and others in representing similarity between two stimulus objects as a distance in psychological space between points representing those objects. This approach bypasses the psychophysics of similarity, in that no relationship between physical stimulus properties and distances or response measures need be assumed or determined. Arguing from theoretical and empirical considerations, Shepard (e.g., 1958) proposed that when the response measure is conditional probability (relative frequency), then a single similarity function, or generalization gradient, holds across all stimulus sets. This is

show abstract

Odd-item search by pigeons: Method, instrumentation, and uses

Cited by 33 publications

References 17 publications

Form perception and attention in pigeons

Form perception and attention in pigeons

Touchscreen-enhanced visual learning in rats

Quantitative relations between visual search speed and target-distractor similarity

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About