Sample‐duration Effects on Pigeons' Delayed Matching as a Function of Predictability of Duration

Abstract

Three experiments assessed the impact of sample duration on pigeons' delayed matching as a function of whether or not the samples themselves signaled how long they would remain on. When duration was uncorrelated with the sample appearing on each matching trial, the typical effect of duration was observed: Choice accuracy was higher with long (15-s) than with short (5-s) durations. By contrast, this difference either disappeared or reversed when the 5- and 15-s durations were correlated with the sample stimuli. Sample duration itself cued comparison choice by some birds in the latter (predictable) condition when duration was also correlated with the reinforced choice alternatives. However, even when duration could not provide a cue for choice, pigeons matched predictably short-duration samples as accurately as, or more accurately than, predictably long-duration samples. Moreover, this result was observed independently of whether the contextual conditions of the retention interval were the same as, or different from, those of the intertrial interval. These results strongly support the view that conditional stimulus control by the samples is partly a function of their conditioned reinforcing properties, as determined by the relative reduction in overall delay to reinforcement that they signal.

Nonspatial and Subdivision-Specific Working Memory Deficits after Selective Lesions of the Avian Prefrontal Cortex

“…DMTS task. The parameters and test conditions were adapted from earlier investigations involving delay tasks in pigeons (Urcuioli et al, 1999). Trials began with the presentation of the sample stimulus, i.e., the illumination of the central key with either red or green light.…”

On the Development and Mechanics of Delayed Matching-to-Sample Performance

“…Nevertheless, the DMTS procedure has been widely used in studies with several species. Recent investigations using DMTS as a procedure to assess short‐term remembering include studies with rats (e.g., Seif, Clements, & Wainwright, 2004), pigeons (e.g., Urcuioli, DeMarse, & Lionello, 1999), nonhuman primates (e.g., Sawaguchi & Yamane, 1999), humans with developmental disabilities (e.g., Williams, Johnston, & Saunders, 2006), and typically developing humans (e.g., Critchfield & Perone, 1990). In addition, the DMTS procedure has been repeatedly employed to assess pharmacological effects on short‐term remembering of several drugs including amphetamine (e.g., Baron & Wenger, 2001), cocaine (e.g., Branch & Dearing, 1982), ethanol (e.g., Girard, Xing, Ward, & Wainwright, 2000), MDMA (e.g., Harper, Hunt, & Schenk, 2006), and nicotine (e.g., Elrod, Buccafusco, & Jackson, 1988).…”

Titrating‐delay Matching‐to‐sample in the Pigeon

“…The DMTS procedure has been widely used in studies with several species. Recent investigations using DMTS as a procedure to assess short‐term remembering include studies with rats (e.g., Seif, Clements, & Wainwright, 2004), pigeons (e.g., Urcuioli, DeMarse, & Lionello, 1999), nonhuman primates (e.g., Sawaguchi & Yamane, 1999), humans with developmental disabilities (e.g., Williams, Johnston, & Saunders, 2006), and typically developing humans (e.g., Critchfield & Perone, 1990). In addition, the DMTS procedure has been repeatedly employed to assess pharmacological effects on short‐term remembering of several drugs including amphetamine (e.g., Baron & Wenger, 2001), cocaine (e.g., Branch & Dearing, 1982), ethanol (e.g., Girard, Xing, Ward, & Wainwright, 2000), MDMA (e.g., Harper, Hunt, & Schenk, 2006), and nicotine (e.g., Elrod, Buccafusco, & Jackson, 1988).…”