Value transfer in concurrent-schedule discriminations by pigeons

Zentall, Thomas R.; Weaver, Janice E.; Sherburne, Lou M.

doi:10.3758/bf03199012

Cited by 20 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…greater value through its association with A than D acquires through its association with C. Design 2 is very similar to the Design I employed by Dorrance et al (1998), except that C is partially reinforced, and A is consistently reinforced within the context of the A-Band C-D discrimination (Clement, Weaver, Sherburne, & Zentall, 1998, Experiment 2;Zentall & Sherburne, 1994;Zentall, Sherburne, Roper, & Kraemer, 1996;Zentall, Weaver, & Sherburne, 1996). In Design 3, A is consistently reinforced, whereas discrimination training is given prior to the C-D trials in which C is consistently nonreinforced (Steirn, Weaver, & Zentall, 1995).…”

Section: Exp 1 Eexp 4(riy) Exp2 Oexp 4(rib)mentioning

confidence: 91%

“…With one exception (Dorrance et al, 1998, Experiment 4: RIB), the stimuli used in all studies discussed above were consistently paired red-yellow and blue-green (Clement et al, 1998, Experiment 2;Steirn et al, 1995;Zentall & Sherburne, 1994, Experiment 2;Zentall, Sherburne, et al, I996a;Zentall, Weaver,& Sherburne, 1996), other than the first experiment ofZentall and Sherburne's (1994) study, in which red-green and dot-circle pairings were used.' Although each stimulus was used equally frequently in each of the four roles (A, B, C, or D), the critical issue is whether generalization within each pair is greater than that between the pairs.…”

Section: Exp 1 Eexp 4(riy) Exp2 Oexp 4(rib)mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Alternative accounts are preferable to value transfer theory: Commentary on Dorrance, Kaiser, and Zentall (1998)

Aitken

1999

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Dorrance, Kaiser, and Zentall (1998) Kaiser, and Zentall (1998) have reported a series of experiments on simultaneous discrimination learning by pigeons in which the value ofthe positive discriminative stimulus (S+) was varied outside the context of the simultaneous discrimination. Following concurrent training on two such discriminations, the relative.value of the two S-stimuli was assessed by means of a choice procedure. In all four experiments, an S-trained in a discrimination with an S+ of higher value was preferred. A simplified version of the design, denoted Design I, is shown in Table I. Each of two pairs of stimuli (A-B and C-D) is presented on a series of simultaneous discrimination trials, with choice responses to A or C reinforced, and choice responses to B or D, nonreinforced. Interspersed with these trials are single-stimulus trials on which stimulus A or C is presented alone, with responding to stimulus A reinforced with a greater probability than that for responding to stimulus C. Following this training, the pigeons were presented with a choice between Band D. In each of the four experiments, the pigeons showed a preference for stimulus B. Dorrance et al. (1998) interpret these results in terms of value transfer theory (VTT), in which it is assumed that some ofthe value ofthe S+ in a simultaneous discrimination transfers to the S-. Thus, according to VTT, choice responding would be more likely to B than to D in the simplified design shown in Table I, because more value would transfer to B from A, which is reinforced during the single-stimulus trials, than would transfer from C to D. The authors compare this account with an occasion setting account, which fails, as the authors note, to predict the observed preferences in any of the four experiments.Value transfer is not the only mechanism that can account for these data, however. The greater reinforcement of stimulus A over stimulus C on the interspersed trials would presumably cause the two simultaneous discriminations in Design I to differ in difficulty. As a result, more errors would be observed on C-D trials than on A-B trials, possibly leading to a greater degree of inhibitory control accruing to stimulus D. Such a difference was clear in Dorrance et al.'s (1998) Experiments 1,2, and 4, and it was precisely these experiments that revealed the greatest preference of B over D. Dorrance et al. seek to discount this simple mechanism, based on the different reinforcement history of stimuli Band D, by means of a simple, yet problematic, analysis. They report a negative correlation in three out of the four experiments (Experiments 1,2, and 3) between two measures: the proportion ofnonreinforced responses to Band D that were to D during training (%D choice), and the proportion of test responses on B-D trials that were to B (%B choice). They argue that this contradicts the simpler account: If the preference for B over D depended on the birds' having made more nonreinforced responses to D, one would expect a positive correlation between these two meas...

show abstract

Section: Exp 1 Eexp 4(riy) Exp2 Oexp 4(rib)mentioning

confidence: 91%

Section: Exp 1 Eexp 4(riy) Exp2 Oexp 4(rib)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Alternative accounts are preferable to value transfer theory: Commentary on Dorrance, Kaiser, and Zentall (1998)

Aitken

1999

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…When the pigeons were tested with a choice between two identical schedules that were from two different contexts in training, B (VI 40 sec) versus C (VI 40 sec), C was preferred. Grace and Savastano (1997) argued that although C elicited more responding than B, C may not have been more valued than B (see also Zentall, Weaver, & Sherburne, 1996). To test this hypothesis, Grace and Savastano separated the reinforcing value of the stimuli from their eliciting strength by using a concurrent-chains procedure.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“work ethic” in pigeons: Reward value is directly related to the effort or time required to obtain the reward

et al. 2000

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Stimuli associated with less effort or with shorter delays to reinforcement are generally preferred over those associated with greater effort or longer delays to reinforcement, However, the opposite appears to be true of stimuli thatfollow greater effort or longer delays, In training, a simple simultaneous discrimination followed a single peck to an initial stimulus (S+FRI S-FRl) and a different simple simultaneous discrimination followed 20 pecks to the initial stimulus (S+FR20 S-FR20)' On test trials, pigeons preferred S+FR20 over S+FRI and S-FR20 over S-FRI' These data support the view that the state of the animal immediately prior to presentation of the discrimination affects the value of the reinforcement that follows it. This contrast effect is analogous to effects that when they occur in humans have been attributed to more complex cognitive and social factors,

show abstract

“…Correspondence should be sent to T R. Zentall, Department of Psychology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, criminations, the pigeons were given a choice between the two negative stimuli (B and D). According to value transfer theory, A should have had more value to transfer to B than C should have had to transfer to D. In support of value transfer theory, Zentall and Sherburne found that animals trained in this manner consistently chose B over D. Subsequent research has validated this effect (e.g., Steirn, Weaver, & Zentall, 1995;Zentall, Sherburne, Roper, & Kraemer, 1996;Zentall, Weaver, & Sherburne, 1996).Recently, Clement, Weaver, Sherburne, and Zentall (1998) tested the second of Fersen et al's (1991) hypotheses, that negative value from the S -may transfer to its associated S+, resulting in a decrease in the relative value of the S+. Clement et al (1998) trained pigeons using a procedure similar to that used by Zentall and Sherburne (1994), but in this case, the values of the S+ stimuli were equated, whereas the values of the S-stimuli were varied (AIOOB o and ClOoD so)' In a preliminary experiment, they found that the value of the S-had little effect on the value of the S+ with which it was presented.…”

mentioning

confidence: 88%

Determinants of value transfer and contrast in simultaneous discriminations by pigeons

Clement

Zentall

2000

Animal Learning & Behavior

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In a simultaneous discrimination involving a positive (S+) and a negative (S-) stimulus, positive value appears to transfer from the S+ to the S-. However, negative value does not appear to transfer from the S-to the S+. Instead, when sufficient experience with the contingencies associated with responding to the S-is provided, it appears that the presence of the S-enhances the value of the S+ (i.e., a contrast effect is found). The purpose of the present experiments was to further examine the influence of the S+ on the S-in a simultaneous discrimination (between subjects in Experiment 1 and within subjects in Experiment 2). In both experiments, we found that under typical training conditions, given little direct experience with the value of the S-, value transfers from the S+ to the S-. If sufficient experience with the value of the S-is provided, however, contrast between the S+ and the Scan be demonstrated. Thus, in a simultaneous discrimination, value transfer from the S+ to the S -depends on the animal's having responded relatively little to the S-.Fersen, Wynne, Delius, and Staddon (1991) proposed that in a simple simultaneous discrimination, positive value (similar to Hull's, 1943, notion of excitation) from the stimulus associated with reinforcement (S+) can transfer to the stimulus not associated with reinforcement (S-), thus increasing the relative value of the S -. They also proposed that negative value (similar to Hull's notion of inhibition) can transfer from the S-to the S+, thus decreasing the relative value of the S+. The mechanism by which such transfer occurs is similar to stimulus generalization, but it does not depend on the similarity between the S+ and the S-, as suggested by Spence (1937), but rather on the spatial and temporal proximity of the two simultaneously presented stimuli. Although it is reasonable to posit such transfer of value between S+ and S-, Fersen et al. provided no direct evidence in support of value transfer theory.Zentall and Sherburne (1994) tested the hypothesis that positive value can transfer from the S+ to the S-by using a procedure in which pigeons were trained on two simultaneous discriminations. In one simultaneous discrimination, responses to the S+ were always reinforced, whereas in the other discrimination, responses to the S+ were reinforced only half ofthe time. In both discriminations, responses to the S -were never reinforced. Thus, the two discriminations can be designated A lOoB o and CsoD o (where the subscripts indicate the percentage of the time that reinforcement was provided for responding to each ofthe stimuli). Following acquisition of these disThe research presented here was supported by Grants MH55ll8 and MH59l94 from the National Institute of Mental Health to TR.Z. We thank Janice E. Weaver and Joann Feltus for their contribution to this research. Correspondence should be sent to T R. Zentall, Department of Psychology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, criminations, the pigeons were given a choice between the two negative stimuli (B and D). Ac...

show abstract

Value transfer in concurrent-schedule discriminations by pigeons

Cited by 20 publications

References 18 publications

Alternative accounts are preferable to value transfer theory: Commentary on Dorrance, Kaiser, and Zentall (1998)

Alternative accounts are preferable to value transfer theory: Commentary on Dorrance, Kaiser, and Zentall (1998)

“work ethic” in pigeons: Reward value is directly related to the effort or time required to obtain the reward

Determinants of value transfer and contrast in simultaneous discriminations by pigeons

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About