Transfer Effects in Feature-Positive and Feature-Negative Learning by Pigeons

Nallan, Gary B.; Miller, James S.; McCoy, D. F.; Taylor, Roger T.; Serwatka, Joseph

doi:10.2307/1422159

Cited by 5 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…At least two other studies have explored the effects of transitions between feature-positive and feature-negative conditions. Nallan, Miller, McCoy, Taylor, and Serwatka (1984) explored these transitions in pigeons, and Nallan, Brown, Edmonds, Gillham, Kowalewski and Miller (1981) in humans. Although their tasks did not involve behavior chains, both studies were consistent with the conclusion that feature-positive → feature-negative transitions are more disruptive than featurenegative → feature-positive transitions.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Why don’t guiding cues always guide in behavior chains?

Reid

Rapport

2013

Learn Behav

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This research focused on the changes in stimulus control that influence an animal's ability to master a behavioral skill. We assessed stimulus control by (a) predictive environmental cues (panel lights) and (b) practice cues resulting from the subject's own behavior, as rats learned to complete a leftright lever-press sequence. Following a demonstration of overshadowing by Reid, Nill, and Getz (Behavioural Processes 84: 511-515, 2010), in which stimulus control by the panel lights overshadowed control by practice cues, four additional experiments replicated and assessed this overshadowing effect. In Experiment 1, we discovered a powerful asymmetry: Rats failed to adapt to a lights → reversed-lights transition, but adapted immediately to a reversed-lights → lights transition. Experiment 2 was designed to measure the interactions between these stimulus conditions and practice cues. In Experiment 3, we measured the effect of these stimulus conditions on acquisition rates. Finally, in Experiment 4 an ABA design was used to assess the effects of prior exposure to condition A on B → A transitions, and we found that prior exposure generally reversed the effects observed in B → A transitions presented first or in isolation. We discuss feature-positive bias and spatial S-R compatibility as potential explanations of the observed insensitivity to cues that should be, at face value, highly predictive of food during the acquisition of a behavioral skill. Perfectly predictive cues in behavior chains do not always guide behavior.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Why don’t guiding cues always guide in behavior chains?

Reid

Rapport

2013

Learn Behav

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Discrimination learning was clearly superior for the feature-positive group. Jenkins and Sainsbury labeled this asymmetry in discrimination learning the feature-positive effect, and it has been demonstrated with numerous other stimuli (Holland, 1991;Lea, 1974;Looney & Griffin, 1978;Morris, 1977;Nallan, Miller, McCoy, Taylor, & Serwatka, 1984;Sainsbury, 1971Sainsbury, , 1973. Hearst (1987) argued that it is not a learning asymmetry but a performance asymmetry (i.e., organisms are able to acquire the discrimination, but during conventional conditioning training, their behavior is not controlled by the distinguishing feature).…”

Section: Stimulus Materialsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Motion as a Natural Category for Pigeons: Generalization and a Feature‐positive Effect

Dittrich

Lea

1993

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Three groups of pigeons were trained with a modified discriminative autoshaping procedure to discriminate video images of other pigeons on the basis of movement. Birds of all groups were shown the same video images of other pigeons, which were either moving or still. The group to whom food was presented only after moving images learned the discrimination very quickly. A second group, to whom food was given only after still images, and a pseudocategory group, to whom food was presented after arbitrarily chosen stimuli, showed no evidence of discrimination during acquisition training. Extinction conditions led to clear differences in peck rates to moving and still images in the second group but not in the pseudocategory group. The result is related to the feature-positive effect. Generalization tests showed that the discrimination performance was based on visual features of the stimuli but was invariant against changes of size, perspective, brightness, and color. Furthermore, discrimination was maintained when novel images of pigeons under different viewing angles and seven other types of motion categories were presented. It is argued that the discrimination is based not on a common motion feature but on motion concepts or high-order generalization across motion categories.

show abstract

“…It is known, though, that the successive discrimination procedure they used is generally more difficult than the simultaneous procedure that we employed (Mackintosh, 1974). Nallan et al (1984) nevertheless obtained a strong effect with a simultaneous paradigm but using quite different stimuli and no correction procedure. Hearst (1984) reported that shorter ITIs lead to a relatively better performance of FN subjects and thus to a weaker FPE.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…When the reverse condition applied, that is, when the feature-bearing shape was the negative (nonreinforced) stimulus and the plain shape was the positive stimulus (feature-negative condition = FN condition), the pigeons showed little learning. Barring the fact that it is somewhat difficult to predict what will constitute a feature, the FPE has since been found in pigeons to be a robust effect resistant to a number of procedural variations (see Nallan, Miller, McCoy, Taylor, & Serwatka, 1984, for a brief review). It has also been consistently obtained in several species other than the pigeon (e.g., rats: Halgren, 1974;Reberg & Leclerc, 1977;cats: Diamond, Goldberg, & Neff, 1962;monkeys: McCoy & Yanko, 1983;Pace, McCoy, & Nallan, 1980;humans: Nallan et aI., 1986;Newman, Wolff, & Hearst, 1980;Sainsbury, 1972).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Preventing a Feature-Positive Effect in Pigeons

Lindenblatt

Delius²

1988

The American Journal of Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The feature-positive effect (FPE) is a widespread and robust phenomenon in the context of discrimination learning. It refers to the fact that a distinctive feature associated with a stimulus that is reinforced leads to efficient discrimination learning, whereas the same feature associated with the nonreinforced stimulus inhibits discrimination learning. Two experiments with pigeons showed that the FPE also occurs with a simultaneous discrimination paradigm involving brief discrete trials and no intertrial intervals. A pre-training treatment unexpectedly prevented the expression of the FPE in this discrimination task. The pretraining consisted of having pigeons discriminate the feature/nonfeature visual shapes from a plain background disc. Rewarding responses to the shapes, or alternatively to the blank disc, had the same FPE-preventing effect. A reversal of a feature/nonfeature stimulus discrimination led to an analogous erasure of the FPE. The results are discussed in terms of the concurrence or interference between the various associations that the subjects formed on the basis of the different stimulus-reward correlations they experienced in the different phases of the experiments.

show abstract

Transfer Effects in Feature-Positive and Feature-Negative Learning by Pigeons

Cited by 5 publications

References 8 publications

Why don’t guiding cues always guide in behavior chains?

Why don’t guiding cues always guide in behavior chains?

Motion as a Natural Category for Pigeons: Generalization and a Feature‐positive Effect

Preventing a Feature-Positive Effect in Pigeons

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About