Perceptual Learning during Filial Imprinting: Evidence from Transfer of Training Studies

Abstract

Chicks were first imprinted by exposing them to a moving training stimulus, B or C, that was projected onto a screen at one end of an experimental cabinet. Subsequently, subjects selectively approached the stimulus to which they had been exposed. On the following day, the chicks were placed into a chilled experimental cabinet (15°C) and received trials on which two stimuli (A and B) were projected onto screens located at opposite ends of the cabinet. If the subject approached Stimulus A, a stream of warm air was delivered; if it approached B, the trial terminated, and no heat was presented. For subjects that had been imprinted with Stimulus B, those in Group B, Stimulus A was novel, and Stimulus B was familiar. For chicks that had been imprinted with Stimulus C, Group C, both A and B were novel. In two experiments, Group B acquired the discrimination more rapidly than did Group C. This observation, made using a novel training procedure, was taken to support the suggestion that imprinting results in a form of perceptual learning in which the familiar imprinting object has become more discriminable from other novel objects.

Learning about associatively activated stimulus representations: Implications for acquired equivalence and perceptual learning

“…Chamizo and Mackintosh (1989;see also Trobalon, Sansa, Chamizo, & Mackintosh, 1991) have found that separate nonreinforced exposure to each ofthe relevant maze arms can facilitate subsequent discrimination learning in which rats are rewarded for choosing one arm rather than the other. Studies of the domestic chick (e.g., Honey, Horn, & Bateson, 1993) have shown that discrimination between two cues is enhanced by prior training designed to allow imprinting to each ofthe cues. In studies offlavor-aversion learning, it has been shown that an aversion conditioned to one flavor will generalize less well to another when the animals have had prior experience of these flavors.…”

Familiarity-based stimulus generalization of conditioned suppression.

“…In all experiments, generalization was greater when the auditory stimuli were matched for familiarity (either both stimuli were familiar or both stimuli were novel) than when their familiarity was mixed (one was familiar, the other novel); that is, generalization occurred along a dimension of stimulus familiarity (cf. Best & Batson, 1977 ; Gaffan, 1974 ; Honey, 1990 ; Honey et al, 1993 ; Robinson et al, 2010 ). We saw also that familiarity-based generalization did not seem to be the result of sensory preconditioning occurring in Group CT (cf.…”

“…An understanding of animals’ ability to discriminate novel from familiar stimuli is central to our understanding of recognition memory (e.g., Mackintosh, 1987 ; Mandler, 1980 ) and has implications for our understanding of stimulus representation (e.g., Gaffan, 1974 ; Honey, 1990 ; Honey, Horn, & Bateson, 1993 ; McLaren & Mackintosh, 2002 ). Much understanding of animals’ novelty/familiarity discrimination comes from studies of rodents’ spontaneous object recognition (e.g., Olarte-Sanchez, Amin, Warburton, & Aggleton, 2015 ; Whitt & Robinson, 2013 ).…”

“…We may think of representational elements as being, within the limits of the sensory systems of the organism, an approximation of the physical characteristics of the conditioned stimulus. However, it has been claimed that a stimulus familiarity dimension can mediate generalization among stimuli, independently of their physical similarity (e.g., Best & Batson, 1977 ; Gaffan, 1974 ; Hall, 2001 ; Honey, 1990 ; Honey et al, 1993 ). Within the conception above, a novel stimulus might include an additional representational element, “7” and a familiar stimulus might include an additional representational element “8.” They could then affect generalization as physically based representational elements are assumed to.…”

Light exposure of chick embryo influences lateralized recall of imprinting memory.

“…An alternative explanation of these findings could entail a dissociation of separate elements involved in the formation of imprinting memory (e.g., elements associated with the discrimination of the imprinting stimulus from other stimuli may be dissociated from those required for approach behavior during testing; see Honey, Horn, & Bateson, 1993). Andrew (1997) has proposed that memory requires hemispheric interaction so that linkages are established between different trace fragments.…”