Supplementary report: Two-choice behavior of monkeys.

William, Alexander; Wilson, Jr.

doi:10.1037/h0041915

Cited by 21 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, pigeons trained in a two-key situation with response to red reinforced on a random 70% of trials, and response to yellow reinforced on the remaining trials, come to choose the red key on a random 70% of trials. Analogous experiments with the rat (Wodinsky, Candland, and Bitterman, 1958) and the monkey (Wilson, 1960;Meyer, 1960) have for the most part yielded only maximizing-i.e., choice on almost all trials of the higher-probability alternative.5 When a correspondence between reinforcement-ratio and choice-ratio has, on occasion, appeared in one of these higher animals, it has been found to have a different basis than in the lower ones. For example, a correspondence foundin the 'This work was supported by the Office of Naval Research under terms of Contract Nonr 2829(01).…”

Section: Bryn Mawr Collegementioning

confidence: 99%

FURTHER EXPERIMENTS ON PROBABILITY‐MATCHING IN THE PIGEON¹

Graf

Bullock

Bitterman

1964

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In a discrete-trials, two-key choice situation, probability-learning by pigeons was studied under a variety of training conditions. Matching was found in simultaneous and in successive problems, but a spatial problem produced only maximizing. In the simultaneous problem, noncorrection produced maximizing, while correction produced matching. Guidance produced maximizing when the animals were required to earn each opportunity for choice by pecking a center key on FR-5, but matching when the center key was not used. In a discrete-trials one-key situation, with latency as the measure, frequency and probability of reinforcement were varied independently. Differences in probability produced differences in latency of response, but differences in frequency did not.

show abstract

Section: Bryn Mawr Collegementioning

confidence: 99%

FURTHER EXPERIMENTS ON PROBABILITY‐MATCHING IN THE PIGEON¹

Graf

Bullock

Bitterman

1964

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Other experiments in which animals chose between two reinforcers of differing probabilities have produced either approximate probability matching (in which response proportions match the reinforcement probabilities) or near-exclusive preference for the alternative with the higher probability of reinforcement (e.g., Behrend & Bitterman, 1961;Bitterman, Wodinsky, & Candland, 1958;Graf, Bullock, & Bitterman, 1964;Wilson, 1960). Shimp (1966Shimp ( , 1967 proposed that pigeons' responses move toward exclusive preference if the training continues long enough.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Probability and Delay of Reinforcement as Factors in Discrete‐trial Choice

Mazur

1985

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pigeons chose between two alternatives that differed in the probability of reinforcement and the delay to reinforcement. A peck on the red key always produced a delay of 5 s and then a possible reinforcer. The probability of reinforcement for responding on this key varied from .05 to 1.0 in different conditions. A response on the green key produced a delay of adjustable duration and then a possible reinforcer, with the probability of reinforcement ranging from .25 to 1.0 in different conditions. The green-key delay was increased or decreased many times per session, depending on a subject's previous choices. The purpose of these adjustments was to estimate an indifference point, or a delay that resulted in a subject's choosing each alternative about equally often. In conditions where the probability of reinforcement was five times higher on the green key, the green-key delay averaged about 12 s at the indifference point. In conditions where the probability of reinforcement was twice as high on the green key, the green-key delay at the indifference point was about 8 s with high probabilities and about 6 s with low probabilities. An analysis based on these results and those from studies on delay of reinforcement suggests that pigeons' choices are relatively insensitive to variations in the probability of reinforcement between .2 and 1.0, but quite sensitive to variations in probability between .2 and 0.

show abstract

“…Rats apparently maximize on 70:30 spatial problems in about 100 trials (Bitterman, Wodinsky, & Candland,1958;Roberts, 1966). Rhesus monkeys (Wilson, 1960), trained on a 75:25 spatial problem with guidance, attained a level of 90 percent responses to the major stimulus only after 384 trial s. The Tange, and somewhat paradoxical distribution, of species differences in performance on spatial probability tasks suggests the possibility that qualitatively similar behavior, i.e., maximizing, may not reflect completely homologous processes in different mammalian species. …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These findings on cats are generally consonant with the .data for rats and monkeys. Rats (Bitterman, Wodin sky , & Candland, 1958;Roberts, 1966) and monkeys (Wilson, 1960;Wilson & Rollin, 1959) usually maximize on spatial Pl'9.bability learning tasks when tested with guidance or correction. In addition, it has been shown that monkeys learn to maximize in many fewer trials when tested with noncorrection (Wilson & Rollin,1959) than with guidance or correction (Wilson, 1960).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Rats (Bitterman, Wodin sky , & Candland, 1958;Roberts, 1966) and monkeys (Wilson, 1960;Wilson & Rollin, 1959) usually maximize on spatial Pl'9.bability learning tasks when tested with guidance or correction. In addition, it has been shown that monkeys learn to maximize in many fewer trials when tested with noncorrection (Wilson & Rollin,1959) than with guidance or correction (Wilson, 1960).It should, however, be pointed out that there is a wide range of variation among the mammalian species in the rate that they learn to maximize on spatial Reply to Goldstein by Ronald Baenninger, Temple University Goldstein (1967) has said that I attribute the extinction of visually reinforced responses in Siamese fighting fish to habituation. My argument, however, was more subtle, and can be clarified in the following way.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Spatial probability learning by cats

Poland

Warren

1967

Psychon Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Groups of six cats were trained, with noncorrection or with guidance, for 1200 trials on each of four ratios of reinforcement: 70:30, 60:40, 40:60 and 30:70, in a spatial probability learning experiment. Both groups eventually learned to choose the more frequently rewarded stimulus on almost every trial, the noncorrection Ss learning to do so much sooner than the guidanc e Ss. The results of this experiment with cats tend to agree with previous observations that rats and monkeys maximize on spatial probability problems. The available evidence, however, indicates that cats tested with guidance on spatial probability problems learn to maximize considerably more slowly than rhesus monkeys and that monkeys are, in turn , inferior to rats. Bitterman (1965a, b) maintains that vertebrate classes differ qualitatively in performance on probability learning tasks. This view implies that there should be no major qualitative differences among species of the same class. The available data are, however, too limited to provide a realistic estimate of intraclass variability; the mammals, for example, are represented only by rats and monkeys. The purpose of the present experiment was to determine whether the choice behavior of cats on a spatial probability problem is qualitatively similar to that of rats and monkeys tested under analogous conditions. This investigation was motivated by the observation of rather impressive differences between the performance of cats and monkeys in visual probability learning (Warren & Beck, 1966). MethodTwelve mature cats, nine mongrel and three Siamese, were studied. All of the Ss had previously served in learning set experiments, and all had been trained on visual probability problems, but none had participated in any experiment on spatial probability learning before this experiment.The cats were tested in the WGTA. The manipulanda were identical 2.5 x 4.0 rectangles cut from 3/4 in. lumber which were painted dark gray, and presented on a medium gray test tray, containing two food wells 12 in. apart.The Ss were tested 1200 trials on each of four ratios of reinforcement in the following sequence: 70:30, 60:40, 40:60, and 30:70, with 50 trialS' being given in each test session and five sessions per week. The 12 Ss were assigned to two groups of six animals each, the Noncorrection and Guidance groups. The Noncorrection group was trained with a strict non correction procedure throughout the experiment; S was allowed only a single response on each trial. For Guidance Ss each trial ended with a reinforced response. When the cat's initial response on a given trial was incorrect, the opaque screen of the WGT A was lowered, the object on the nonrewarded side of the tray was positioned behind the empty food well, and the baited food well remained covered with its object. The test tray was then presented to S, and the trial ended only when it displaced the object covering the rewarded food well and secured the reinforcement. Only initial responses were considered in analyzing the results.For half the Ss...

show abstract

Supplementary report: Two-choice behavior of monkeys.

Cited by 21 publications

References 2 publications

FURTHER EXPERIMENTS ON PROBABILITY‐MATCHING IN THE PIGEON¹

FURTHER EXPERIMENTS ON PROBABILITY‐MATCHING IN THE PIGEON¹

Probability and Delay of Reinforcement as Factors in Discrete‐trial Choice

Spatial probability learning by cats

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Supplementary report: Two-choice behavior of monkeys.

Cited by 21 publications

References 2 publications

FURTHER EXPERIMENTS ON PROBABILITY‐MATCHING IN THE PIGEON1

FURTHER EXPERIMENTS ON PROBABILITY‐MATCHING IN THE PIGEON1

Probability and Delay of Reinforcement as Factors in Discrete‐trial Choice

Spatial probability learning by cats

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

FURTHER EXPERIMENTS ON PROBABILITY‐MATCHING IN THE PIGEON¹

FURTHER EXPERIMENTS ON PROBABILITY‐MATCHING IN THE PIGEON¹