UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Pigeons discriminate durations of food access better than durations of light Spetch, Marcia Louise 1979

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1979_A8 S64.pdf [ 2.82MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0100233.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0100233-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0100233-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0100233-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0100233-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0100233-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0100233-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0100233-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0100233.ris

Full Text

PIGEONS DISCRIMINATE DURATIONS OF FOOD ACCESS BETTER THAN DURATIONS OF LIGHT by MARCIA LOUISE SPETCH B.A., The University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1977  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Department of Psychology)  We accept t h i s thesis as conforming to the required standard  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA September 1979  (c) Marcia Louise Spetch, 1979  In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s  thesis in partial  an a d v a n c e d d e g r e e a t the L i b r a r y I  further  for  shall  the U n i v e r s i t y  make i t  agree that  freely  this  thesis for  It  f i n a n c i a l gain shall  Department of _ The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a 2075 W e s b r o o k P l a c e V a n c o u v e r , Canada V6T 1W5  n.tP  BP 75-51 1 E  SEPT  An  the requirements I agree  r e f e r e n c e and copying of  this  that  not  copying or  for  that  study. thesis  by t h e Head o f my D e p a r t m e n t  i s understood  permission.  of  B r i t i s h Columbia,  extensive  s c h o l a r l y p u r p o s e s may be g r a n t e d  written  DE-6  of  available for  permission for  by h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . of  fulfilment  or  publication  be a l l o w e d w i t h o u t  my  ABSTRACT  In  the  present  keypecking  by  control by  the  designed  experiments the  stimulus  duration  duration  of  of  control  of  pigeons'  food access was compared with  light.  These  experiments  were  to extend previous research on three topics within the 1)  stimulus control l i t e r a t u r e : comparisons  between  the  stimulus  control  by  food,  2)  effectiveness of different stimuli i n  c o n t r o l l i n g behavior, and 3) control by stimulus,, duration. . 1,  Experiment  a go/no-go procedure was used to compare control  of pigeons' keypecking by food-access duration with light  duration*  Pecks  to  stimulus,*. duration  but  not  control  by  an illuminated key were reinforced  with grain following 10-sec houselight,  In  presentations  after  5-sec  Each of the f i v e subjects  of  food  access  presentations discriminated  of  or  either  food-access  faster and to a consistently greater degree than l i g h t  duration*. pigeons  In  four  between-subject  discriminated food-access  systematic duration  replications,  better  than  the  duration of a l o c a l i z e d l i g h t , the feeder l i g h t , and a keylight, and with either water or food as demonstrated  the  generality  discrimination procedures*,  and  a a  these  results  with  control  by  light  conditional r i g h t - l e f t choice procedure delayed  pigeons).  Under  symbolic both,  t r i a l s than on l i g h t received  of  Experiment  2  across  In t h i s experiment, control by food-  access duration was compared under  reinforcement.  matching-to-sample accuracy  trials.  In  was  (two pigeons),  procedure  greater  Experiment  duration  (six  on food-access 3,  two  pigeons  generalization tests with durations of food access and  l i g h t that results  were  showed  dimension  intermediate that  f o r both  to  the  training  values.  The  responding was controlled by the duration  stimuli.  The  excellent  control  by  food  access i n these experiments i s consistent with previous evidence that  food  i s an e f f e c t i v e and memorable stimulus f o r animals,  and the difference i n control by the duration of food and provides  empirical  support  stimuli d i f f e r  i n their  advantages  using  different  of  stimuli  f o r the  common  effectiveness  of  light  assumption  control,.  that  Several  a duration paradigm to compare control by  are  discussed*  This  research,  which  demonstrates that the stimulus can play an important role i n the accuracy  of duration discriminations* also has implications f o r  the study of control by stimulus duration, and for theories timing processes i n animals.  of  iv  TABLE OF CONTENTS  Abstr act  ..........................  ......... i i  L i s t of Tables ...................  v  L i s t of Figures ... i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . i v  Acknowledgements ...... ................ . ... . .. . v i  Introduction ............................. ..,,,,..» . 1 Experiment 1 .,i. .................. ............. ..... 14 Experiment 2  i . . . ... i ... .... .I.,.-..-.,. 31  Experiment 3 , i * , . . i ..i,i,;.ii ........  . . . . ,.i ... i * . .. .43  General Discussion ........................ ..... ... ... ,48 Reference Note ............ ..i1... .i.-,.,. References ........................ ... «.i i i  . i i 56 57  v  LIST OF TABLES  Table 1,  Subjects  and  Conditions  of  the  Main  Experiment and Four Replications . L . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22  Table 2.  Mean Number of Keypecks During S+ T r i a l s ........... 29  vi  L I S T OF  Figure  1. S c h e m a t i c used  Figure  diagram  of  i n Experiment  1, .  2. D i s c r i m i n a t i o n access of  training  foodof  Figure  for  2A.  training  function  food-  function  pigeons  in  f o o d - a c c e s s and of t r a i n i n g  for  replications  (percent correct) trials  the  of  two  as a  on  food-  function  pigeons  in  . . . .. ................ . . . . . . . . . . ........ 36  (percent  a c c e s s and l i g h t  6i Proportion  on  four  accuracy  Experiment  on  1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27  training  Si. M a t c h i n g  as a  five  ratios  and h o u s e l i g h t  Experiment  Figure  the  the  4. C h o i c e a c c u r a c y access  trials  as a f u n c t i o n  in  Experiment  of  ( S - / S - + S+)  1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24  trials  pigeons  Figure  for  procedure • • • • . • • • . . 2 0  ratios  3i. . D i s c r i m i n a t i o n light  the basic  and h o u s e l i g h t  Experiment  Figure  FIGURES  for  2B.  of  trials  the  six  correct) as a  on  function  pigeons  in  ...... ............. .... .. .. .......... ..41  left-key  responses  of stimulus duration  pigeons i n Experiment  for  the  as  a two  3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS  I would l i k e to extend special D. M. Wilkie,  f o r his support  thanks  to my  supervisor,  and valuable assistance with each  stage of t h i s research, I also wish to thank J. .P. „J. Pinel, W.  Skelton,  and L, J . T e r l e c k i for their h e l p f u l comments and  e d i t o r i a l suggestions; fi>.Summers, B,i Leader,  R.  Kirkbride,  D>  King,  L.  and M,. Gordon for their help i n testing the subjects;  and C i Spetch for typing assistance,.  1  INTRODUCTION It  i s often  assumed that some s t i m u l i a r e more e f f e c t i v e  than o t h e r s i n c o n t r o l l i n g a g i v e n organism's (e.g».  Mackintosh,  (e-g., Staddon,  1977).  More  operant  specifically,  some  was  designed  t h i s assumption. pigeons'  authors  1974) have suggested t h a t food i s a p a r t i c u l a r l y  s a l i e n t and memorable s t i m u l u s f o r hungry animals. research  behavior  to  The  present  provide some e m p i r i c a l evidence f o r  In the present experiments s t i m u l u s c o n t r o l o f  keypecking  by  the d u r a t i o n  of  food  access  was  i n v e s t i g a t e d and compared with c o n t r o l by the d u r a t i o n o f l i g h t . In  t h e next  three s e c t i o n s o f the I n t r o d u c t i o n , s t i m u l u s  c o n t r o l and antecedent simulus experimental  procedures  them, are d e s c r i b e d . antecedent  control  commonly  by  stimuli  has  been  duration  the  literature  on  comprises the f i f t h  duration  demonstrated  and the  t o e s t a b l i s h and study  the relevent  stimulus  Although c o n t r o l by  are d e f i n e d ,  used  A review o f  sectionw  comparisons  control  of  a  frequently,  variety no  of  explicit  of c o n t r o l by the d u r a t i o n of d i f f e r e n t s t i m u l i have  been reported*  In the s i x t h s e c t i o n , e m p i r i c a l evidence f o r the  common assumption  that  stimuli  differ  in their  ability  to  a c q u i r e c o n t r o l of behavior i s examined and found t o be l a c k i n g . Several  attempts  to  compare  ambiguous r e s u l t s because each  a different  s t i m u l i have  dimension  was  produced used f o r  s t i m u l u s and the values s e l e c t e d from these dimensions not  equated f o r d i s c r i m i n a b i l i t y . must  different  either  equate  the  In order t o compare s t i m u l i ,  values of the d i f f e r e n t  dimensions by  p s y c h o p h y s i c a l s c a l i n g techniques, or use a dimension common both  stimuli  as the b a s i s f o r the comparison.  one  to  A discussion of  2  the p o s s i b i l i t y of u s i n g d u r a t i o n as which the  to  a  common  dimension  compare s t i m u l u s c o n t r o l by various s t i m u l i  seventh  consistent  section, with  and  the  in  the  suggestion  that  c o n t r o l l i n g stimulus i s described. Introduction  is a  eigth  comprises  section,  evidence  i s an  effective  food  The  with  last  section  of the  summary o f the r a t i o n a l e and purpose  o f the  present r e s e a r c h .  Stimulus C o n t r o l of Operant  Behavior  In operant c o n d i t i o n i n g , r e i n f o r c e m e n t i s upon  a c l a s s o f responses..  light  or  sound,  Sometimes  these  are  changes  in  occurrence). fashion  some  when  acquire  i . e . , changes i n the s t i m u l i in  these  control  (e.g., t h e i r  response  changes  in  a  of these  characteristic  and  i s easy  to  imagine  covary  in  control  responses by the v i s u a l a s p e c t s adaptive;. resemble  A  pigeon  stimuli  of  food  of  t h a t approaches  and  such  discrimination. be  adaptive.  stimulus  For example,  water  stones  might  be  likely  would  i n the same manner t o  Such d i f f e r e n c e s i n behavior i n the presence  d i s c r i m i n a t i o n would not  dimension,  and pecks at o b j e c t s t h a t  g r a i n but not those t h a t resemble  exemplify  regular  o f pigeons' consumatory  s u r v i v e l o n g e r than a pigeon t h a t responds both.  a  of  i s said to exist.  nonoccurrence  how  result  (e.g., r a t e  c o n t r o l apparently can be adaptive t o an organism.. it  occur.  responses;  s t i m u l u s along a given  c o n t r o l by the stimulus dimension Both the occurrence  responses  presentation)  When changes i n responding  with  contingent  I n e v i t a b l y , c e r t a i n s t i m u l i , such as  present  stimuli  made  In For  other  of d i f f e r e n t situations,  example,  pigeons  3  approach grains  and peck g r a i n s of v a r i o u s shapes  and c o l o r s as well as  found i n new l o c a t i o n s . . T h i s g e n e r a l i z a t i o n of behavior  to s i m i l i a r  but  novel  situations  undoubtedly  pigeon's chances o f o b t a i n i n g an adequate  i n c r e a s e s the  supply o f food.  E s t a b l i s h i n g Stimulus C o n t r o l Operant designed  d i s c r i m i n a t i o n t r a i n i n g i s a procedure  to  procedure, variables  establish  one on  can  stimulus  experimentally  stimulus  control.  control* examine  In  specifically  By the  using  this  effect  discrimination  of  training,  reinforcement i s made c o n t i n g e n t upon responding i n the presence of a c e r t a i n s t i m u l u s , o f t e n c a l l e d the d i s c r i m i n a t i v e (Skinner,  1938).  F o r example, presence  of  a  stimulus  pigeon's keypecking may be  reinforced  in  the  one  stimulus  reinforced  in  i t s absence or i n t h e presence  (S ) +  but not  of another  (S~) .  The u s u a l r e s u l t of such t r a i n i n g i s a higher r a t e of responding during S+ than during S~.  C o n t r o l by Antecedent  Stimuli  A c o n t r o l l i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p between s t i m u l i also  may  develop  under  conditions  in  which  and the  terminate and are not present when responding o c c u r s . referred  to  as  antecedent  stimulus  control*  responding S* and S  -  This i s Operant  d i s c r i m i n a t i o n procedures designed t o e s t a b l i s h such c o n t r o l are o f t e n c a l l e d memory paradigms because control  to occur the organism  S+ and/or  S~.  relevent  to  i n order f o r t h i s type  must remember i n some f a s h i o n the  Thus, s t u d i e s of antecedent s t i m u l u s c o n t r o l the  growing  of  are  l i t e r a t u r e on animal memory processes  4  (Honig & James, Roberts,  1971;  & Davis,  antecedent conditional  Hulse,  Fowler,  Honig,  stimulus  control  the  i s established  procedures..  occurrence  of  S  or  +  to a s t i m u l u s t h a t f o l l o w s both  will  be r e i n f o r c e d .  reinforced preceded the  key,  pigeons' by  As a r e s u l t , Under stimuli  exemplified  for  1978)  by  delayed  1977) ,  and  by  of  controlled  +  by  two  antecedent the  or  (S~)  or  (1977) was  p r o j e c t e d on on  t o the  the  key..  white  key.  antecedent  choice  stimuli,  i s contingent  upon  T h i s c h o i c e procedure (e,.g.,  is  Blough,  (Lyderson, P e r k i n s , & C h a i r e z ,  matching-to-sample  as t h e  will  when i t  a number o f more  whether  Wilson  surround  alone  two  qo/no-qo  S~  key  matching-to-sample  symbolic  nonspatial  pecking  t o some o f t h e s e  oddity-from-sample  well  and  W i l k i e and  of  stimulus.  delayed  S*  responding  one  one  determines  -  on a g r e e n  +  responding  delayed  and  (S )  procedures,  p r o c e d u r e s , as  1962)  S  followed  preceding  1959),  line  choice  fieinforcement the  line  a white  when i t f o l l o w e d g r e e n  the  is  F o r example,  keypecks to  a white  but not  Medin,  Under  S  responding not  1978;  1976),  discrimination  procedures,  &  delayed  (e.g.,  spatial  Williams,  (e.g., (e.g.,  1971)  Wilkie, Hearst,  alternation  procedures,.  Antecedent  C o n t r o l by. S t i m u l u s  S e v e r a l experiments  Duration  have i n v e s t i g a t e d  stimulus duration;  F o r example, R e y n o l d s  using  procedure,  a  go/no-gb  keypecking key  was  by  dark,.  and  demonstrated  t h e d u r a t i o n o f an In t h e i r study,  antecedent  interval  the  pecking  control  Catania  control  of  d u r i n g which a key  was  by  (1962), pigeons' pecking  illuminated  5  for  30  sec  following a variable dark-key duration that ranged  from 3 to 30 sec i n 3-sec increments,.  Keypecking was reinforced  according to a 20-sec variable-interval (VI) schedule after 30-sec  dark-key  duration  durations of the dark key responding with  to  the  increases  (S+), (S ),.  the  As  -  lighted  in  but  not a  following  result,  the  shorter  the  rate  of  key increased i n a regular fashion  duration  of  the  preceding  dark-key  interval. Stubbs  (1968)  demonstrated  control  of  pigeons*  choice  behavior by stimulus duration using a delayed symbolic matchingto-sample procedure. center  key  with  Trials  began  orange l i g h t .  stimulus from orange to white. remained  on  for  one  with  illumination  of  the  A peck at this key changed the The  white  key  stimulus  then  of several durations, half of which were  designated as long, the other h a l f , as short,.  As  soon  as  the  center white stimulus terminated two side keys were illuminated, one  with  red  light  and one with green*  Pecks to the red key  were reinforced after any of one class (short or long) of whitekey durations-  Pecks t c the green key were reinforced after any  of the other class of white-key durations;* duration  As  a  result,  the  of t i e white key controlled pecks to the red and green  keys. Pigeons' choice behavior also has been  controlled  by  the  duration of a preceding tone (Kinchla, 1970) and by the duration of  their  own  keypecks  (Ziriax & Silberberg, 1978); and rats'  choice behavior has been controlled by the duration of blackouts (Church & Deluty, Lerner, 1976),  1977)  and  white  noise  (Church,  Getty,  &  6  Most  of  these  experiments  have focused p r i m a r i l y on  p s y c h o p h y s i c a l aspects of temporal d i s c r i m i n a t i o n . various  For  p s y c h o p h y s i c a l procedures have been used t o  difference  limens  (Church, Getty, 6 Lerner, 1976)  1976a),.  Elsmore  (1972), Kinchla  analysed d u r a t i o n  discrimination  theory of s i g n a l d e t e c t i o n The  effects  discriminations found  that  stimulus  duration*  reinforced  duration, under  t e s t i n which  variables  infrequently^  training  control  Pigeons  t r a i n i n g i n which key a single  procedural  have been s t u d i e d  of  was  a  of  first  pecks  VI  Stubbs,  psychophysical  to  for  keypecking  the by  were given n o n d i f f e r e n t i a l with b l a c k o u t s of  illuminated  A subsequent  were  generalization  However,  another,  following  one  training  blackout  blackout  key  showed no c o n t r o l of keypecking by b l a c k o u t duration*. discrimination  of  (1971)  presented  reinforced  durations  duration  Elsmore  pigeons'  the  schedule.  on  were  following  various  of  (1976b) have  necessary  illuminations alternated and  points  1977;  Stubbs  i n terms o f the  investigate  (e.g., Green & Swets, 1966),.  discrimination  development blackout  of  (1970), and  example,  and  b i s e c t i o n f o r temporal i n t e r v a l s (Church & Deluty,  the  in  which  duration  but  1  keypecking not  was  following  g e n e r a l i z a t i o n t e s t s showed t h a t blackout d u r a t i o n  had  T h i s means of a s s e s s i n g s t i m u l u s c o n t r o l a f t e r n o n d i f f e r e n t i a l reinforcement i s subject to certain problems*. For example. Mackintosh (1977, p,. 491) has pointed out that such f a i l u r e s to observe s t i m u l u s c o n t r o l may not be due to the nondifferential training, but r a t h e r t o masking by other s t i m u l i . In Elsmore*s study, the v i s u a l s t i m u l u s on the pecking key may have acquired sufficiently high c o n t r o l of pecking t o mask any control acguired by the b l a c k o u t duration. Also, Wilkie and Masson (1976) have shown t h a t f a i l u r e s to demonstrate stimulus c o n t r o l might be the r e s u l t of the t e s t i n g procedures,*, 1  7  acquired control of keypecking* The procedure used to establish the  stimulus  accuracy of temporal discrimination.  Maurissen under  (1974)  go/no-go  compared versus  procedure resulted  in  pigeons'  spatial smaller  control  affects  Perikel, R i c h e l l ,  duration  and  discriminations  choice procedures,;  The  duration-difference  choice  thresholds  than the go/no-go procedure. Although  a  variety  of s t i m u l i have been used i n duration  experiments, there have been no e x p l i c i t comparisons of by  the duration of d i f f e r e n t s t i m u l i .  attention to First,  this  variable  is  control  The lack of experimental  surprising  for  two  reasons,.  the r e s u l t s of duration discrimination studies have been  used to draw inferences about timing processes i n animals Eoberts & Church, 1978), and duration  discriminations  established* terms  of  behavior  yet  the  across  generality stimuli  has  saliency, (e*g, ,  stimulus.  or  Staddon,  their  effectiveness  1974);  The  empirical  stimuli d i f f e r i n effectiveness evaluated  animals' not  been  Second, i t i s often assumed that s t i m u l i d i f f e r i n  if  this  in  basis of  for  controlling  i s true then i t i s  possible that the extent of control by duration the  of  (e.g.,  may  vary  with  the assumption that  control  is  discussed  and  in the next section.  Comparisons Between Stimuli for Effectiveness of Control Many  investigators  assume  that  certain  control of responding more readily and to other s t i m u l i ,  s t i m u l i acquire  greater  For example, Mackintosh (1977, p.  degree 483)  than  stated:  "the amount of t r a i n i n g required to establish control by a p a r t i c u l a r stimulus w i l l surely vary from  8  stimulus to stimulus*..No one would deny that some stimuli appear to be more e f f e c t i v e f o r some subjects than are others." Although  there  are some experimental data consistent  this assumption, surprisingly few studies have evidence  provided  with  direct  f o r differences between the effectiveness of d i f f e r e n t  s t i m u l i i n c o n t r o l l i n g behavior, Several attempts to demonstrate their  ability  to control  behavior  across stimulus dimensions. monkeys'  acquisition and  a  discrimination  using  a  stimuli  a  contour  pattern  differ  in  have involved comparisons  For example, Chow  of  discrimination  that  (1953)  (circle  (diamonds  compared  vs* square) vs. stripes)  Kluver form board, and reported  faster  acquisition of the contour discrimination*  Carter and  (1975)  (red vs. green) with  compared  control  control by two l i n e t i l t s task  with  pigeons,  by  two  colors  Eckerman  (180° vs. 90°) i n a matching-to-sample  Watching  was  established  faster,  and  terminal accuracy was higher with colors than with l i n e t i l t s . Unfortunately, ambiguous  for two  dimensions  of  the results reasons,*  of  First,  both of these studies are i t i s not clear  the s t i m u l i controlled behavior.  discrimination between red and green could any  or  a l l of  a  number  intensity, or saturation. difference  between  of  what  For example, a  reflect  control  by  dimensions, such as wavelength,  Second, i t i s not clear  whether the  the two values selected from each dimension  were equal*  Such differences are very important because  known  the extent of control aquired by a given dimension  that  varies d i r e c t l y with the difference between the values discriminative  stimuli.  For example, two line t i l t s  i t is  used  as  differing  9  by 90° readily control  pigeons  keypecking  1  t i l t s d i f f e r i n g by only 5° might not. different  stimuli  across  psychophysical isometric between  values  would be to use psychophysical noticeable species;.  difference  dimensions  to equate  from each dimension.  two  line  Therefore, comparisons of  stimulus  analysis  whereas  require  the differences  One method f o r doing t h i s  procedures  to f i n d  the  just  (JND) along each dimension for the given  Then, values from each dimension that  differ  by the  same number of JNDs could be selected to compare stimuli* The  effectiveness  of stimuli  can be compared with l e s s  d i f f i c u l t y by using a dimension common to each stimulus basis  of the comparison.  as the  A few comparisons of t h i s sort have  been attempted, but these too have suffered from problems* example,  Jarvik  For  (1953) used wavelength as the common dimension  to compare stimuli with a simultaneous discrimination procedure. In t h i s study, control of monkeys' choice behavior by the color of  bread  was  celluloid. (either served  compared  Under one condition, red and green squares of  dyed  bread,  both  as  reinforcers*  Bread  choice  one  adulterated subjects  bread  were  discriminative  stimuli  and  as  the  of one color was unflavored; the other was The monkeys were permitted to choose  of these,.  behavior;  bread  cr bread covered with colored c e l l u l o i d )  the discriminative  quinine-adulterated. consume  to control by the color of squares of  The color of bread rapidly controlled  nonei of the monkeys more  tested  and  than  in a  once second  chose  the  i n 25 t r i a l s . condition  quinineThe same  i n which  the  stimuli were red and green squares of c e l l u l o i d .  A square of cne color  was  located  i n front  of  a  piece of  10  unflavored  white bread; a square of the other color was located  in front of quinine-adulterated celluloid  acquired  little  white bread,.  control  The color  of choice  monkeys chose the quinine-adulterated  bread on  of the  behavior; the almost  half of  the 25 t r i a l s * Because  the s p a t i a l  and temporal contiguity between the  stimulus, response, and r e i n f o r c e r were not the same i n the two conditions, i t i s impossible in  to determine whether the difference  control by the color of bread vs. the color of c e l l u l o i d was  due to the s t i m u l i themselves, or to differences i n the nature of  the task*  Furthermore,  the dimensions  that  responding to the red and green squares of bread were  not established*  monkeys' responses between  red and  were  controlled  or  celluloid  I t i s possible for example, that the controlled  green;  no  by  attempt  intensity  was  made  differences to equate the  intensity differences i n the two conditions. A close examination of similar attempts to compare (e.g.,  Deluias  Konorski,  &  Emmerton,  1966; Harrison 6  1978; Dobrzecka,  Briggs,  stimuli  Szwejkowska, &  1977) reveals  that  these  studies also did not establish which dimension(s) of the s t i m u l i controlled responding* Thus,  comparisons between the a b i l i t y of d i f f e r e n t s t i m u l i  to control behavior are not as easy as one might f i r s t First,  a dimension common to each stimulus  imagine,.  must be selected, or  isometric scaling must be conducted i f d i f f e r e n t dimensions used,.  Second,  dimension(s), requirement  evidence actually  is  must  be  control (s)  discussed  further  provided  that  responding.  are  the nominal This  latter  i n the introduction  to  11 Experiment 3*  Selecting a Common Dimension for Comparing Stimuli Many dimensions are common stimuli*  For example,  stimuli. stimuli  color  only is a  Moreover, even when there perceived  by  to a  different  limited  property  of only v i s u a l  are dimensions sensory  range of  common to  modalities, they are  frequently not suitable f o r comparisons of such s t i m u l i they  are measured  therefore  would  Intensity, however  i n different require  units  rescaling  for each modality and in  isometric  units,  for example, i s a property of both l i g h t and sound;  one cannot  difference  equate  a  particular  sound  intensity  with a p a r t i c u l a r l i g h t intensity difference without  elaborate psychophysical  studies.  One dimension that i s common to a l l s t i m u l i The  because  values  of t h i s dimension can be equated accurately  s t i m u l i , and can be manipulated e a s i l y setting.  i s duration.  Thus  ,  within  an  experimental  the duration dimension seems well suited to  comparisons among s t i m u l i .  One could use duration as the common  dimension to compare a variety of s t i m u l i , f o r example, and tones* to  lights  I f control by certain durations of l i g h t i s superior  control  would  across  by the same durations of tones, or vice versa, t h i s  imply  that  differentiate  them,  certain  other  properties  of the s t i m u l i  For example, l i g h t s (or tones) may possess  properties that enhance attention to, or exploration  of, such  stimuli,  that the  and t h i s  might  increase  the l i k e l i h o o d  different values on the duration dimension Additional  research  would  be  detected.  would be required to specify the properties  12  which enhance the a b i l i t y of a stimulus to control behavior*  Stimulus Control by B i o l o g i c a l l y Important I f stimuli possible  that  differ  in  Events  effectiveness  of  control,  there might be large differences between s t i m u l i  that d i f f e r substantially i n t h e i r b i o l o g i c a l importance organism;. or  i t is  to  the  Stimuli that are important for s u r v i v a l , such as food  water, commonly are used to reinforce behavior; i t would not  be.surprising i f discriminative  such  stimuli  stimuli.  also  Staddon  were  very  (1974),  for  effective  as  example,  has  suggested that reinforcing stimuli possess " i n t r i n s i c  salience"  and may be "more memorable" than "neutral" stimuli,. In  general,  the  evidence  investigated stimulus control by supports  the  assumption  that  from  food these  studies  or  water  stimuli  control of behavior and are very memorable.  that  have  presentations readily acquire  For example,  there  i s considerable evidence that the occurrence or nonoccurrence of food  is  a memorable event for hungry animals*  alternation studies absence  demonstrated  on  presence  presence  or  running speeds (e.g., Goodrich,  the next t r i a l , even when the t r i a l s are separated by Spivey,  1964)*  Similarily,  the  or absence of grain has controlled pigeons' keypecking  over long delays i n (Maki, Moe,  independent 1979)*  1  the  and bar press latencies (e.g., Wall, &  up to 24 hr (e.g., Capaldi &  tasks  that  of food reward w i l l control r a t s  Capaldi, 1967) 1964)  have  Numerous reward  both  delayed  symbolic  matching-to-sample  & B i e r l y , 1977; Wilkie, 1978)  go/no-go  discrimination  task  and a response-  (Botjer  &  Hearst,  13  Several  studies  have shown that qualitative properties of  reward also control behavior readily,. (1972)  found  that  type  of  For  reward  example,  (milk  vs. food  controlled r a t s ' running speeds i n an alternation well  as  their  and Dertke standard  choice between two runways.  Pschirrer  paradigm,  Cruse,  (1966) used a multiple schedule procedure i n which food  pellet  control  of  i n i t i a t e d one schedule of reinforcement, and  found  F i n a l l y , Spetch and Wilkie (Note 1),  reward alternation paradigm,  keypecking rates vs.  a  rats' bar press rates and choice responses by  the type of p e l l e t ; a  as  Vitellelli,  and a sucrose p e l l e t i n i t i a t e d a different schedule, good  pellets)  and  using  demonstrated control of pigeons'  topographies  by  type  of  reward  (food  water),; In  view  of t h i s growing body of evidence that reinforcing  s t i m u l i are very e f f e c t i v e i n c o n t r o l l i n g operant seemed  worthwhile  to  d i r e c t l y compare control by such s t i m u l i  with control by a more "neutral" stimulus. present  behavior, i t  Therefore,  in  the  experiments the effectiveness of food access and l i g h t s  as discriminative stimuli were compared; served as the basis for t h i s  The duration dimension  comparison.  Purpose of the Present Research Antecedent stimulus control by the duration of had  not  been  investigated; thus, one purpose.of t h i s research  was to demonstrate In  and describe such stimulus control,  the present experiments  keypecking  by  control by  the  food-access  the  duration  duration  of  stimulus of  food  lights.  control  access The  of  pigeons'  was compared to  purpose  of  these  14  comparisons  was  provide an stimuli  two-fold.  uneguivocal  F i r s t , these experiments sought to  demonstration  of  differences  i n their effectiveness i n c o n t r o l l i n g operant  Second, these  the  importance of the stimulus i n control by stimulus duration.  For  in  by  important  designed  to  previous stimulus duration experiments t r a d i t i o n a l  "neutral" s t i m u l i such control  were  behavior.  investigate  example,  ccmpariscns  between  the way  "biologically  as  lights  duration from  of  control  important"  or  these by  the  stimulus.  noise  have  stimuli  may  duration  been  used;  d i f f e r i n an of  a  more  Such a finding would have  implications f o r the generality of the previous work on duration discrimination.  EXPERIMENT 1 In t h i s experiment food-deprived pigeons were exposed to an elaboration of the go/no-go  duration  discrimination  procedure  used by Reynolds and Catania (1962).  Pecks to a key illuminated  with  with  green  light  were  illumination was preceded but  reinforced by a 10-sec  grain  (S*)  when  stimulus  the key  duration,  not when i t was preceded by a 5-sec (S ) stimulus duration. -  A g r a i n - f i l l e d feeder (food access) served as  the  stimulus  on  half of the t r i a l s ; the houselight served as the stimulus on the remaining  trials*  This  within-subject comparisons of  procedure the  allowed  acquisition  within-session, of  control  by  food-access duration and houselight duration* In subsequent r e p l i c a t i o n s , control by food-access duration was  compared to control by the duration of a l o c a l i z e d l i g h t , a  keylight,  and  the  feeder  light.  These  replications  were  15  included  to  determine  whether c o n t r o l by food-access d u r a t i o n  would d i f f e r i n a c o n s i s t e n t way from c o n t r o l by t h e d u r a t i o n of v a r i o u s forms o f l i g h t . were r e i n f o r c e d such  In two o f these r e p l i c a t i o n s ,  keypecks  with water i n s t e a d o f food, to determine  differences  in  control  whether  were s p e c i f i c t o f o o d - r e i n f o r c e d  behaviors.  Experimental In t h i s experiment subject  methodology  was employed. experimental  Design  (and t h e o t h e r s reported below) (cf,; Hersen  Single-subject approaches  & Barlow, 1976; Sidman, 1966)  methodology  differs  i n two important ways;  from  of s e v e r a l i n d i v i d u a l s taken together; generality  other  F i r s t , the data  of i n t e r e s t are those o f i n d i v i d u a l s u b j e c t s , not average  and  single-  Second, the  values  reliability  o f the data from the i n d i v i d u a l s i s assessed by  r e p l i c a t i o n , e i t h e r with the same or d i f f e r e n t s u b j e c t s ( w i t h i n or between-subject or  slightly  replications, In  the  r e p l i c a t i o n s , r e s p e c t i v e l y ) and with the same  different  procedures  (direct  or  systematic  respectively). present  systematic w i t h i n - and  experiments,  direct  between-subject  between-subject  replication  and  techniques  were employed. Method  Subjects The s u b j e c t s were s i x S i l v e r King 9)  and  five  White. King  (Birds 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, and  (Birds 3, 4, 5, 10, and 11) pigeons.  16  Bird  7 was e x p e r i m e n t a l l y  autoshaping  training  naive;  prior  B i r d s 3 and 4 had r e c e i v e d  to this  s u b j e c t s had v a r i e d e x p e r i m e n t a l All_ 80 at  these  obtained  weights during  feedings (see ml  1); d a i l y  obtained All  health deprived  remaining  until  they  were  They  were  by  the  study  sessions,  and  water i n t a k e was r e s t r i c t e d  during the experimental  mixed  grain  post-session deprived  t o t h e 15 t o 20  sessions*  i n large individual  a l w a y s was a v a i l a b l e .  between  maintained  Some s u b j e c t s a l s o were water  b i r d s were housed grit  the  t h e . experimental  o f maple peas,.  Table  o f food  f r e e - f e e d i n g weights. throughout  The  histories*  s u b j e c t s were d e p r i v e d  and 85% o f t h e i r  experiment.  only  cages  in  which  S u b j e c t s t h a t were n o t water  had u n l i m i t e d a c c e s s t o water i n t h e i r  home  cages.  Apparatus A standard was  M o d e l PS-004 one-key p i g e o n  used d u r i n g t h e main e x p e r i m e n t  3.  The  about An  BBS-Foringer  clear  plastic  0.2 N t o o p e r a t e , Industrial  pecking  and E e p l i c a t i o n s 1,  Engineers'  Series  p r o j e c t o r c o n t a i n i n g 2.8 W lamps was mounted b e h i n d illuminated  the  BSE/LVE  Model  allowed  access  key,* 2,. 8  with  #114-10 to  a  uniform  field  solenoid-operated  mixed  W  lamp  in  t h e hopper.  water d i s p e n s e r  feeder*  A  plastic  and  one 10  o f green  grain  by  stimulus  feeder  3.5  cm  A  that  below t h e of  a  #114-06 s o l e n o i d -  was mounted on t h e w a l l t o t h e l e f t container,  and  light.  illumination  A BSR/LVE Model  wall.  t h e key  g r a i n was l o c a t e d d i r e c t l y  F e e d e r o p e r a t i o n s were a c c o m p a n i e d  operated the  key  2,  key, which r e q u i r e d a f o r c e o f  was l o c a t e d on t h e c e n t e r o f  Electronics  chamber  i n diameter,  of was  17  mounted on the w a l l below the water dispenser*  T h i s served as a  r e c e p t i c l e i n t o which  water  dispensed*  A  4.8  a W  measured  of  could  be  lamp was mounted on the w a l l 3 cm to the  left  of the water r e c e p t i c l e .  2,8  W  lamps  volume  The h o u s e l i g h t c o n s i s t e d  of  two  i n the upper f r o n t c o r n e r of the chamber, mounted  behind a metal panel.  When these were l i t , r e f l e c t e d l i g h t  the panel t o the white c e i l i n g  from  provided d i f f u s e . i l l u m i n a t i o n  of  the e n t i r e chamber* A  BES/LVE  during  Model  Replication  #132-02  4,.  The  two-key pigeon chamber was used two  clear  plastic  keys,  which  required  a f o r c e of about  0*2 N to operate, were l o c a t e d on one  wall  cm  Electronics  18  projector,  apart.  An  and  the r i g h t  BRS/LVE  Model  centered  on  keys. 2,8  Series  #114-10 the  same  key with a  uniform  key with a uniform f i e l d solenoid-operated wall  field  of  lamp i n the hopper.  white  of r e d l i g h t .  grain  feeder  A was  between and below the two pecking  Feeder o p e r a t i o n s were accompanied by i l l u m i n a t i o n W  10  c o n t a i n i n g 2,8 W lamps, was mounted behind each key.  These i l l u m i n a t e d the l e f t light,  Engineers'  H o u s e l i g h t s were never  of  a  used i n t h i s  replication, Experimental c o n d i t i o n s and data r e c o r d i n g were  controlled  by D i g i b i t s o l i d - s t a t e and e l e c t r o m e c h a n i c a l c i r c u i t s .  Procedure General In  Procedures  t h i s experiment  and a l l experiments  r e p o r t e d below, each  s u j e c t r e c e i v e d one experimental s e s s i o n per day*. Sessions were conducted  7  days  per week at approximately the same time  each  18  day,.  A l l subjects were weighed intermittently* _ Preliminary Training The preliminary training f o r a given subject depended  upon  i t s prior experimental experience and the experimental condition under  which  training,  the  each  illuminated  subject bird  hopper  would  be  reliably: and/or  (a)  drank  ate  from  from the  (Replications 2 and 3 only) , and  recepticle  at  tested,.  the  end of  the  raised  illuminated water  (b)  pecked  with  a  high and stable rate at the illuminated response key* Discrimination Training A) Main  Experiment  Figure  1 i l l u s t r a t e s the basic discrimination procedure of a discrete t r i a l  the main experiment. used*  The  four  types  of  go/no-go  trials  houselight or feeder operation  each  (food  which  began  access).  remained on for either 10 sec or 5 sec.  procedure with These  Pecks  were  but  first  8  illumination,, produced  consequence  a peck  that  for  the  occurred  stimuli  The pecking key was  illuminated with green l i g h t f o r 10 sec. without  either  a 1.5-sec delay, during  the chamber was dark, followed*  were  during  the  then  recorded  sec last  of key 2  sec  reinforcement (5 sec of grain access) i f the preceding  stimulus* either houselight or food access, had been 10 duration access  was  (S+) * or  separated  Pecks  houselight by  a  following were  never  in  5-sec durations (S~) of food reinforced.  50-sec i n t e r t r i a l i n t e r v a l *  t r i a l s occurred an equal number of times mixed order within a session.  sec  Trials  were  The.four types of  (approximately 10),  in  19  Figure 1. Schematic diagram Experiment  U  of  the  basic  procedure  used  in  20  HOUSELIGHT  FEEDER  1^5  |^  sec  10  ^  sec ON  PECKING  10 s e c  KEY |  1  >  l< GREEN  INTERTRIAL  LIGHT  PRESENTED  1/  DELAY INTERVAL  (1.5sec).  INTERVAL  l<PECKS RECORDED  R E I N F O R C E M E N T (5 s e c G R A I N ) A V A I L A B L E ON 10 sec T R I A L S  , 2 sec  (50 s e c )  21  B)  Replications Four  conducted,. procedure  systematic  replications  In these, certain (Figure  1)  of the main experiment were  features  were modified.  single subject; Replications 2,  3,  of  the  discrimination  Replication  and  4  each  1 involved a involved  two  subjects*  J  Replication  Water reinforcement (1 ml of water was  and the lamp 3 cm to the l e f t of recepticle was 5 sec)  was  dispensed  illuminated  for  substituted for the food reinforcement.  Replication  2  a  localized  light  (illumination  located next to the water recepticle) was  of  used i n place  the lamp of  the  houselight*  Replication  3 The feeder l i g h t  (illumination of the lamp i n the  hopper without presentation  of grain) was  houselight*  was  and  water  substituted  substituted  for  food  for  the  as  the  reinforcement*  Replication 4 a keylight white  light)  was  response key was  The  (illumination  the  left  substituted for the houselight,  key  with  and the r i g h t  illuminated with red rather than green l i g h t .  main experiment and a l l r e p l i c a t i o n s  discriminated  of  responding  Table 1 summarized these  were  terminated  appeared to be stable and various  presents the number of sessions  experimental  for each subject*  when  asymptotic.  conditions  and  22  Table J Subjects and Conditions of the Main Experiment and Four Replications  Experiment  Main  Bird  Stimuli  1  Food Access vs  Reinforcement  Food  Deprivation  Sessions  50  Food  Houselight II  2  "  "  "  70  II  3  II  II  "  5  0  II  4  II  n  "  7  0  it  5  II  II  "  7  0  Replication 1  6  Food Access vs Houselight  Water  Food and Water  70  Replication 2  7  Food Access vs Localized Light  Food  Food  80  8  "  II  Replication 3  7  Food Access vs Feeder Light  11  Water  "  Food and Water  100  70  70  Replication 4  II  10  11  Food Access vs Keylight II  Food  II  Food  II  100  100  23  Data Analysis Control of responding by the duration* of the food and light  stimuli  was  assessed  by  calculating  discrimination ratio f o r food-access and  light  a  the  separate  trials.  Pecks  after the S~ duration of a stimulus (food or light) were divided by  the  stimulus. durations  sum  of  pecks  Thus,  after  the  indiscriminate  would  produce  S+ and s- durations of that  responding  ratios  of  ,5  after  and  the  two  the ratios would  decrease as control by the stimulus duration develops* These r a t i o s were calculated f o r each subject f o r blocks of 10 consecutive sessions and plotted to permit v i s u a l  inspection  of the acquisition of control by the duration of food access and light.  Results  Main Experiment The  discrimination  shown i n Figure 2, separate  panels*  shown by closed  ratios  for blocks of 10 sessions are  Individual pigeons* data  are  presented  in  Acquisition curves f o r food-access t r i a l s are circles;  open  circles  show  the  acquisition  curves for houselight t r i a l s . Two features are apparent i n the data of a l l birds* the  First*  asymptotic values of the discrimination r a t i o s f o r both the  food-access and l i g h t stimuli were below ,5; thus, the duration  J u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r assuming that duration was the c o n t r o l l i n g dimension i s provided by Experiment 3* 1  24  Figure  2.  Discrimination  ratios (S-/S-+S+) on food-access and  houselight t r i a l s as a function of t r a i n i n g pigeons  in  Experiment  1.  (Lower-valued  for  the  five  r a t i o s indicate  better discrimination of the stimulus durations).  25  BLOCKS OF 10 SESSIONS  26  of  both  stimuli acquired some control of the responding  of a l l  f i v e birds* The second and most s t r i k i n g aspect of these difference  i n control  by food-access  Without exception, the trials  decreased  rapidly  discrimination was better) than Food-access responding  duration  i s the  and houselight duration.  discrimination  more  data  ratios  and  those  for  remained  food-access  lower  f o r houselight  (i.e,, trials.  clearly was more e f f e c t i v e i n c o n t r o l l i n g  than was houselight duration*  Replications Figure 3 presents the acquisition curves the  four  light  replications.  stimulus*  whereas  reinforcement*  In spite  showed  the  Each r e p l i c a t i o n involved a d i f f e r e n t  Replications  reinforcement,  same  f o r subjects i n  1  and  Replications of  pattern  these  2  3 and  involved 4  involved  differences,  water food  a l l subjects  of r e s u l t s ; control by food duration  developed more rapidly and to a greater degree than did control by l i g h t duration* Table food-access  2 presents each subjects  1  rates of keypecking during  and l i g h t S+ t r i a l s for the main experiment and the  replications.  Differences  i n rates  of  pecking  on these S+  t r i a l s did not seem to play an important  role i n the differences  in control by these two  subjects  food-access  stimuli*  &11  discriminated  duration better than l i g h t duration i n spite of the  fact that some birds responded more on food S+ t r i a l s and others responded more on l i g h t S  +  trials.  27  Figure 3 . Discrimination ratios on food-access and l i g h t as  a  function  of  training  r e p l i c a t i o n s of Experiment  1.  for  pigeons  in  the  trials four  2  REPLICATION 1  REPLICATION 2  REPLICATION 3  a., •z.  O  \— • <  .00-1  1 2  , 4  1 6  , 8  BLOCKS OF 10 SESSIONS  REPLICATION 4  29  Table 2 Mean Number o f Keypecks  D u r i n g S* T r i a l s  Light  S  Food-access  Experiment  Bird  Main  1  6.54  13. 26  2  5,. 94  5.32  3  15. 30  20.39  4  12, 33  9,57  5  9.59  1 l i 63  14, 80  24*86  7  8.42  11,25  8  5.25  9*41  7  10*36  14.03  9  16. 26  18,. 56  10  17. 02  16; 33  8*35  6,97  Replication 1 Replication 2 II  Replication 3  Replication  4  +  S+  30  Discussion These results demonstrate that food-access duration r e a d i l y controls pigeons' keypecking procedure.  under  a  go/no-go  discrimination  Such control appears to be g u a l i t a t i v e l y s i m i l a r to  control by other other types of  stimuli;  i,e*,  discrimination  improved as a function of training* Apparently, duration  does  duration.  however, differ  Three  control of keypecking by food-access  quantitatively  features  from  control  by  of the results provide evidence f o r  the r e l i a b i l i t y and the generality of these differences. the superior control by food-access duration was every  subject  were  not  studied*  restricted  Second,  to  replicated  in  these differences i n control  food-reinforced  more readily by food-access duration the  comparisons  behaviors.  Water-  in  such  than  by  light  duration.  between food access and the four l i g h t  stimuli yielded comparable differed  First,  keypecks (Replications 1 and 3) also were controlled  reinforced  Third,  light  results  even  though  these  lights  features as i n t e n s i t y , l o c a l i z a b i l i t y , s i z e ,  and location i n the chamber* In features  Replication  3  (food  access  vs* feeder  light),  all  of the two stimuli were i d e n t i c a l , except the presence  and absence of food,. by the duration  of  Therefore, the large difference i n control these  property (ies) of food,.  stimuli  seems  to .be  due  to  some  31  EXPEHIMENT 2 Although Experiment 1 demonstrated  that pigeons' keypecking  in a go/no-go task i s controlled more readily by the duration of access  to food than by the duration of l i g h t , the generality of  t h i s finding across procedures had general  conclusions  effectiveness keypecking;.  of  could  these  to  be  investigated  reached  stimuli  in  about  the  before relative  controlling  pigeons'  In f a c t , there i s evidence which suggests that the  r e l a t i v e control acquired by d i f f e r e n t different  be  operant  discrimination  stimuli  can  procedures,.  vary  For  with  example,  several experimenters (e.g., Dobrzecka, Szwejko^wska, & Konorski, 1966; Lawicka, 1966) have reported that the the  quality,  of  readily  controls  whereas  dogs'  more  two  auditory  dogs'  right-left  go/no-go  readily  by  the  stimuli  position,  but  not  (buzzer vs, metronome)  response  differentiation,  response d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n i s controlled  qualitative  properties of such s t i m u l i .  than  by  the  positional  I t i s possible, therefore, that the  r e l a t i v e control of pigeons' keypecking by food-access and l i g h t duration  also  may  vary  across  specific  to the go/no-go procedure in which one duration always  present  duration  for reinforcement and the other as an  experiments,  above comparison  food-access  may  For  superior  +  by  tasks.  example,  serves as an S  control  discrimination  S. -  be  The  therefore, were designed to replicate the  using choice procedures in which  reinforcement  for a correct response was available after both durations. In  Experiment  discrete t r i a l *  2A,  food-deprived  pigeons  served under a  r i g h t - l e f t choice procedure similar to that used  in previous duration experiments  (e.g., Church &  Deluty,  1977;  32  Kinchla,  1970),.  Trials  began  with  either a short or a long  duration of food-access or houselight presentation, followed illumination  of  two  side keys with green l i g h t .  l e f t key were reinforced following the short access  by  Pecks to the  duration  of  food  or l i g h t ; right-key pecks were reinforced after the long  duration of either stimulus. An elaboration of the delayed  symbolic  procedure was used i n Experiment 2Bi  matching-to-sample  Here, pigeons were exposed  to discrete t r i a l s that again began with one of two durations of food  access  or  light.  Following t h i s , the two side keys were  illuminated, one with red l i g h t and one with green, left  position  of  red  and  green  varying  the  right-  across  trials.  Reinforcement was provided for a peck to red following the short duration, and a peck to green following the longer  duration  of  either stimulus. These  procedures  differed  from  Experiment 1 i n two important ways. assessed by the accuracy differential  response  of  F i r s t , stimulus control was  choice  rates,.  the go/no-go paradigm of  behavior  rather  than  by  Second, both stimulus durations  served as an S* for the a v a i l a b i l i t y of reinforcement. The procedures differed  from  requirement;  of Experiment  each  other  Experiment 2A  discrimination,  whereas  2A  with  involved Experiment  and  Experiment  respect a 2B  to  the  conditional  2B  response right-left  involved a conditional  color discrimination. A r e p l i c a t i o n of the above results these  two  procedures  also  under  would provide convincing evidence for the  generality of the d i f f e r e n t i a l effectiveness of the duration food access and l i g h t as discriminative stimuli for pigeons.  of  33  EXPERIMENT 2A  Method  Subjects Two  Silver  subjects* in  a  King  pigeons  (Birds 12 and 13) served as the  Bird 12 was experimentally naive; Bird 13 had  variety of previous experiments,.  Both were maintained at  approximately 85% of their free-feeding grain  obtained  during  feedings of maple peas*  experimental  served  weights  by  the mixed  sessions and post-session  An unlimited supply of water and health  g r i t was available i n the individual home cages.  Apparatus One wall of the BES-Foringer Model #PS-004 contained  a  chamber  horizontal row of three clear p l a s t i c pecking keys  that each reguired a force of 0.2 N to operate. Electronics  pigeon  An  Industrial  Engineers* Series 10 stimulus projector was mounted  behind each key; these illuminated the keys with a uniform of colored l i g h t .  Centered below the keys was a Gerbrands Model  #G5610 solenoid-operated feeder that permitted timed mixed  grain.  field  access  to  A 2.8 W lamp located within the hopper served to  illuminate the grain presentations. two 2.8 W lamps hidden behind  a  The houselight consisted of  plastic  reflector  above the  keys; these provided a diffuse illumination of the chamber.. Control were performed  of experimental conditions and c o l l e c t i o n of data by a Data General Nova 3 computer*  34  Procedure Preliminary Training At the end of preliminary t r a i n i n g , both birds r e l i a b l y ate from the raised illuminated grain feeder and pecked at both  the  l e f t - and fight-hand illuminated response keys. Choice T r a i n i n g ,  :  T r i a l s began with the presentation of either food access or houselight  f o r a period of 5 sec or 10 sec. At the end of t h i s  period both side keys were illuminated with one of these was pecked* grain  reinforcer  was  green  light  until  I f the correct key was pecked, a 5-sec presented,  The l e f t key was designated  correct following 5 sec of food access or houselight; the key was correct following 10^-sec stimulus presentations* incorrect 5-sec  key  was pecked  stimulus  reinforcement  the  not presented*  employed; i f the pigeon made an initial  stimulus  was  trial  terminated  chamber  presented  was  five  dark.  times  and  A correction procedure was  incorrect  presented  was  response,  the same  again on the next t r i a l . A l l  t r i a l s were separated by a 30-sec i n t e r t r i a l i n t e r v a l the  I f the  ( l e f t after a 10-sec or right after a  presentation) was  right  i n which  Each of the four i n i t i a l stimuli were within  a  session  (correction  trials  excluded) i n a randomly determined order* After  70  sessions  with t h i s procedure, the reinforcement  schedule f o r correct responses was changed  from  p a r t i a l reinforcement i n preparation f o r subsequent Experiment in  continuous  to  testing (see  3). Por 20 sessions a 75% reinforcement schedule was  e f f e c t ; correct responses were reinforced with a probability  of .75,  The remaining correct responses had the same outcome as  35  incorrect responses, occur*  During  except  the  that  last  40  correction  sessions  trials  f o r each  reinforcement schedule f o r correct responses  was  did not bird,  decreased  the to  50%.  Data Analysis Control  by  duration  was  assessed  by  defined as the percentage of t r i a l s on which key  was  pecked.  food-access calculated  and  Separate houselight  choice the  accuracy,  correct  side  accuracy  scores were computed for  trials,.  Accuracy  scores  were  for blocks cf 10 consecutive sessions and plotted as  a function of t r a i n i n g ; higher scores reflected  better  control  of choice behavior by stimulus duration,.  Results Figure  7  shows both bird's accuracy scores on food-access  and houselight t r i a l s  as  a  function  of  training;  Stimulus  duration did acguire control of choice behavior, as reflected by the increase i n accuracy scores to above the chance (50%) l e v e l . However, the extent of this control by duration differed f o r the two  stimuli;  food-access duration acguired more control  yielded higher accuracy scores) than These  results  were  did  houselight  (i.e.,  duration*  consistent across the two birds and across  the three reinforcement schedules.  36  Figure 4, Choice accuracy houselight  trials  (percent correct) on as  a  food-access  function of t r a i n i n g for the two  pigeons in Experiment 2A, In order. A, B, and the  100%,  75%,  and  50%  and  schedules  refer  to  of reinforcement f o r  correct responses; the v e r t i c a l dashed l i n e s t r a n s i t i o n between these schedules.  C  indicate  the  •-• FOOD ACCESS o—o HOUSELIGHT  BLOCKS OF 10  SESSIONS  38  EXPERIMENT 2B  Met hod -  Subjects The  subjects  Experiment  1,  were  Silver  White  King  King  pigeon  pigeons  3  and  4  from  12 from Experiment 2A, two  additional Silver King pigeons (Birds 14 and 15), and one Homing pigeon (Bird 16), Birds 14, 15, and 16 each variety  of  previous experiments.  approximately obtained  85%  during  of  their  feedings of maple peas.  Water  served  in a  A l l birds were maintained at  free-feeding  experimental  had  weights  sessions and  health  and grit  by  grain  post-sessional were  freely  available i n the i n d i v i d u a l home cages*  Apparatus The  equipment  used  was  the  same  as that described f o r  Experiment 2A„  Procedure No preliminary training was necessary and a l l subjects were started immediately on the choice procedure* The variation  choice of  procedure  of  experiment  involved  the delayed symbolic matching-to-sample  The two-part t r i a l s began with stimulus  this  the presentation  f o r either a short or a long duration*  of  a  paradigm. a  sample  Sample o f f s e t  was followed immediately by illumination of the side keys with a red  and a green comparison stimulus, the position  of  red and  39  green  varying  across  trials.  after short samples, or at the produced  a  5-sec  grain  Pecks at the red comparison key green  key  reinforcer.  after  long  samples  Pecks at red after long  samples or green a f t e r short samples terminated  the illumination  of both keys and i n i t i a t e d the 30-sec i n t e r t r i a l i n t e r v a l ; these incorrect responses were always followed by a correction t r i a l . For a l l birds food access served as the sample on the  trials;  for  on  of  the remaining t r i a l s the sample was houselight  Birds 3, 4, and 12, and feeder l i g h t f o r Birds 14,  16,  half  15,  and  I n i t i a l l y the short and long samples were 5 sec and 10 sec,  respectively,  The short sample l a t e r was decreased to 2 sec i n  an attempt to improve matching performance subsequent  testing. -  in  preparation  At the time of t h i s change. Birds 3 and 4  1  had completed the experiment, and Birds 15 and 16 started.  Birds  13  had  not yet  and 14 were i n the course of t r a i n i n g , and  consequently received some sessions i n which was  for  the  short  sample  5 sec, followed by sessions i n which the short sample was 2  sec, i In each session the four samples were presented each  (excluding  the  correction  trial  randomly determined order,. Birds 3,  4,  five  times  presentations)  in a  12,  14,  15,  and  16  received 120, 120, 50, 110, 120, and 30 sessions, respectively*  An investigation of pigeons' keypecking by currently i n progress* 1  the effect food-access  of delays and l i g h t  on control of duration is  40  Data Analysis Control by stimulus duration was assessed by the percentage of  trials  on  accuracy);. for  which  a  correct  response  Separate matching accuracy  food-access  and  light  trials,.  occurred  scores  (matching  were  calculated  For each, the scores were  calculated for blocks of 10 consecutive sessions and plotted  as  a function of t r a i n i n g ,  Results Figure  8 shows matching accuracy as a function of t r a i n i n g  for the s i x birds;  Again, the same effects were revealed;  duration  food-access  of  both  and  light  samples  responses to the comparison  stimuli;  however,  food-access  superior  to  duration  houselight duration (  was  Birds  3,  4,  and  the  the  The  controlled control  by  control by either  16)  or  feeder-light  duration (Birds 12, 14, and 15).  Discussion These  experiments  demonstrated  the  generality  of the  differences i n control by food-access and l i g h t duration  across  discrimination  1 were  procedures.  The  results  of Experiment  replicated i n the present experiments with two choice procedures that differed i n a number of ways from each other, and from go/no-go  procedure  of  Experiment  c l e a r l y was more effective than l i g h t  1.  Food-access  duration  in  pigeons* keypecking under a variety of conditions*  the  duration  controlling  41  Figure 5. Matching accuracy (percent correct) on food-access and light  t r i a l s as a function of training for the six pigeons  i n Experiment 2B. The v e r t i c a l broken lines (Birds 3 and 4) indicate the t r a n s i t i o n from 10- and 5-sec samples and 2-sec samples,.  to  10-  •—• FOOD ACCESS o—o HOUSELIGHT  •—• FOOD ACCESS FEEDER LIGHT  BLOCKS OF 10 SESSIONS  43  EXPERIMENT 3 A  discrimination  dimension  does n o t  dimension. may  always  F o r example,  suggest  other  c o n t r o l by  dimension,  differential  wavelength; as  selected  stimulus  a discrimination  from  control  between  however,  intensity  f o r control  training  may  by a d i m e n s i o n  i s to conduct  new v a l u e s a l o n g t h e  vary  stimuli  by  a  that  r e d and g r e e n  control  by  also  result  dimension  after  some in  two-value  a generalization are  test i n  presented.  If  c o n t r o l s b e h a v i o r , r e s p o n s e s t o t h e new s t i m u l i  as  a  r e s p o n d i n g t o r e d and g r e e n *  discrimination  dimension  two  reflect  such  One way t o t e s t  which  between  systematic  function  of  their  position  the  should on  the  continuum* The stimulus  main p u r p o s e control  demonstration  of by  this  experiment  the  duration  was e s s e n t i a l  to  the  was  present  although previous experiments  Catania,  1962;  Stubbs,  duration  demonstrated present  1968) h a d d e m o n s t r a t e d  dimension,  with d u r a t i o n  research involved  such  control  of food access*  comparisons  be shown t h a t t h e same d i m e n s i o n  Such  research  First,  the  demonstrate  dimension,  reasons*  by  to  two  (e,g*, Reynolds  &  stimulus control had  Second,  not  been  because t h e  between s t i m u l i ,  controls  for  a  i t had t o  responding  in  both  cases* The had sec  present  received  right-left  and 10-sec  present  2A i n which  choice discrimination t r a i n i n g  pigeons with  d u r a t i o n s o f f o o d - a c c e s s and h o u s e l i g h t *  experiment,  intermediate  study f o l l o w e d Experiment  generalization  durations  of  testing  these s t i m u l i ,  was  conducted  5-  In the with  and t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p  44  between test duration and choice behavior was investigated.  Method -  Subjects and Apparatus The subjects and apparatus  were those of Experiment 2A.  Procedure This experiment d i r e c t l y training  with  5-sec  and  followed  10-sec  right-left  The procedure  used  and here  i d e n t i c a l to that of Experiment 2A except that two types of  t r i a l s were arranged.  Choice t r a i n i n g t r i a l s  probability  of  and  these t r i a l s  ( l e f t after 5-sec and right after  ,75,  presentations)  occurred  trials,  occurred  either  with  a  a  10-sec  probability  of  stimulus *75.  The  During  test  food access or houselight was presented for one  of nine durations: 5,5, 6,0, sec,  with  reinforcement for correct choices on  remaining t r i a l s were generalization test t r i a l s *  6,5,  7.Or  8,0,  8.5,  9 0# f  or  9,5  On a given test t r i a l , each test duration of each stimulus  (food  access  or  light)  occurred  with a probability of  Following a test presentation, both side keys and  choice  durations of food-access  houselight reported i n Experiment 2A, was  the  a  peck  reinforcement;  to  1/18.  were illuminated  either key ended the t r i a l but did not produce The correction procedure remained i n  training t r i a l s , but was not used during test Generalization testing was conducted  effect  on  trials.  during 120 sessions by  which time each test duration of both food access and houselight had been presented at least 25 times.  45  Data Analysis For each of the 120 test sessions, a record was kept of the number  of  times  that  the  right  and  left  following each test duration of the s t i m u l i .  keys were pecked Data  access and houselight test t r i a l s were analysed each,  a  from  food-  separately.„ For  function r e l a t i n g the proportion of left-key responses  (correct f o r 5-sec stimulus presentations) the stimuli was plotted.  to test durations  of  Each point was the r a t i o of the number  of left-key responses at a test-stimulus duration divided by the t o t a l number of presentations of that test-stimulus duration.  Results The  functions relating proportion of left-key responses to  test-stimulus durations are presented responses of both birds  clearly  i n Figure 6*  decreased  increases in the durations of the s t i m u l i . between  the  as  The l e f t - k e y  a  function  of  No major differences  functions obtained on food-access t r i a l s and those  obtained on houselight t r i a l s are apparent*  Discussion This experiment c l e a r l y demonstrated the duration dimension;. the  test  durations  Choice behavior  control  by  varied as a function of  of both the food-access and l i g h t s t i m u l i .  Thus, the difference i n control by food  stimulus  the  training  durations  of  access and houselight was not due to different c o n t r o l l i n g  dimensions. The present  results  are  consistent  with  several  other  46  Figure  6.  Proportion  of  left-key  responses as a function of  stimulus duration for the two pigeons i n Experiment 3, Each point represents data from at least 25 t r i a l s *  FOOD ACCESS  HOUSELIGHT  STIMULUS DURATION (SEC)  48  demonstrations  of  control and  by  the  Catania  duration  example,  Reynolds  keypecks  after one dark-key duration  other dark-key durations durations  reinforced  For  pigeons  +  durations*  Keypecking rates  with  choice  Stubbs (1968)  procedure  following any of  a  1  (S+) but not after several after  the  varied as a function of the difference between the  and the S a  (S~).  (1962)  dimension.  reported  SS  -  similar results  i n which one response was reinforced  class  of  short  keylight  durations,  and  another response was reinforced following any of a class of long durations*  Accuracy of responding was a direct function of the  relative  difference  duration  and  Deluty the  in  time  between  a  p a r t i c u l a r keylight  the cutoff between these two classes,  (1977) demonstrated control of rats' choice  Church and behavior  by  duration dimension, using the same technique as used i n the  present experiment.  Rats were given r i g h t - l e f t choice  with  durations, followed by generalization t e s t s  two  blackout  with intermediate the  short  intermediate  durations,.  Choice  responses  training  appropriate  to  duration decreased as a function of increases in the durations,  The present  experiment  extends  these  studies by demonstrating s i m i l a r control by the duration of food access.  GENERAL DISCUSSION These  experiments  clearly  demonstrated  duration i s superior to l i g h t duration in operant keypecking. generalizes  to  that food-access  controlling  pigeons'  This difference in control i s r e l i a b l e , a  number  Experiments 1 and 2, every  of pigeon  experimental  conditions.  discriminated  durations  and In of  49  food  access  better than durations of l i g h t ; these results were  not s p e c i f i c to the p a r t i c u l a r kind of l i g h t , to the r e i n f o r c e r , or to the operant discrimination procedure employed, 3  demonstrated  that  the  keypecking  was  Experiment  controlled  by  the  duration dimension on both food-access and l i g h t t r i a l s . As  discussed  rationales for discussed  in  the  with  the Introduction, there were three major  present  research*  The  results  will  be  s p e c i f i c reference to these three topics i n the  following sections.  The  Effectiveness  of  Food  in  Stimulus  Control  of  Operant  Behavior The  results  consistent  with the  assumption that food i s very e f f e c t i v e i n c o n t r o l l i n g  behavior.  Previous  of  evidence  this  for  research  this  are  assumption came from studies that  demonstrated that animals often can remember certain  properties  of food over long i n t e r v a l s . The present research extends these findings  by  demonstrating^ that  antecedent  control  by  food  developed faster and to a greater degree than control by l i g h t . Any of a number of properties may superior  effectiveness  be  responsible  of food in the present  for  experiments.  i s possible, for example, that the pigeons' behavior during food-access  presentations  mediated  There i s considerable evidence that several  aspects  Vanderwolf between  (1974)  of  their  the  animals  behavior.  demonstrated  that  d i f f e r e n t classes of t h e i r own  face-washing,  etc).  Other  studies  control are  Beninger, rats  could  the It the  by duration. sensitive  to  Kendall,  and  discriminate  behavior (e,g» , rearing, have  demonstrated  that  50  pigeons  can  discriminate  B i l l i n g , 1967; time  the  number of their keypecks (e.g.,  Wilkie, Webster, & Leader, 1979), as well as  between keypecks (Reynolds,  1966),  Apparently  also sensitive to the duration of t h e i r responses,. and  Bitsgood  presses  of  Silberberg  (1973) a  reported  certain  range  of  durations,  findings  one  might  expect  that  and  Ziriax  food-access  In  view  the  duration  occurred  during  with  of  discrimination.  light  may  not  have  been  behaviors  as  closely  the duration of the l i g h t presentations, or as  e f f e c t i v e i n mediating  the duration discrimination.  Attentional mechanisms might also account f o r the effectiveness  of  example,  rewarding  the  of  presentations, a discrimination of eating times  the other hand, the duration of orienting or other  correlated  and  Because the duration of eating  might e f f e c t i v e l y serve to mediate the duration  that  Kuch  pigeons would r e a d i l y  during food access l i k e l y was correlated with  On  Piatt,  (1978) found that pigeons could discriminate between  discriminate t h e i r eating times,  the  animals are  that rats learned to emit lever  keypecks that differed only by a few milliseconds. these  the  food  properties of food may  in  superior  c o n t r o l l i n g pigeons' behavior.  value  and/or  For  the r e s p o n s e - e l i c i t i n g  ensure attention to the stimulus on food-  access t r i a l s ; whereas, the pigeons may not always have attended to the l i g h t presentations f o r t h e i r entire duration, or on some trials. the  Attention to the stimulus conceivably could affect both  speed  of learning about the relevent dimension, as well as  performance on the task once the relevent dimension has acquired control* The complexity  of the food-access  stimulus  may  also  have  51  contributed  to i t s effectiveness.  Food presentations consisted  of several elements, including the noise associated with r a i s i n g and lowering of  the  grain  hopper  and  the  sight  of grain.  Perhaps the greater number of stimulus elements present on foodaccess t r i a l s increased t h e i r salience. The  superior  control by food also could be related to the  dimension  chosen to compare  theories  of  selective  food  and  other  For example,  control  may  by  be  more  dimensions w i l l sometimes interfere with, or overshadow  control  dimension,  and  stimulus  salient  the relevent  dimensions  a  1974) have  the  by  than  .  attention (e.g.. Mackintosh,  suggested that certain dimensions of salient  light  I t i s possible that duration i s a  p a r t i c u l a r i l y s a l i e n t property of food but not  of  light.  The  duration of access to food l i k e l y i s of particular importance to a hungry animal;. are  I f other dimensions of l i g h t  (e>g;, intensity)  more s a l i e n t than i t s duration, the poorer control by l i g h t  could be due  to  greater  overshadowing  by  these  nonrelevent  dimensions* Finally,  i t i s possible that the superior control by food  access r e f l e c t s i t s greater b i o l o g i c a l importance to the animal. For example, proponents of the recent b i o l o g i c a l constraints on learning  position  have suggested certain  (e.g.,  that  Seligman,  animals  are  predisposed  to  learn  about  events more readily than others because of the adaptive  significance  of  experiments  found  such that  learning control  b i o l o g i c a l l y important stimulus, light,  1970; Shettleworth, 1972)  a  in by was  nature. food  access,  superior  presumed more "neutral" event.  The  to  present  a presumed control  by  Although t h i s finding  52  is  consistent  with  considerable  the constraints  additional  demonstrate  that  biologically  research  animals  important  are  on  learning  would  be  predisposed  events,  to  viewpoint, required  learn  to  about  as- a class^ more readily than  about more "neutral" events.  Comparisons  Among Stimuli  The present r e s u l t s provide direct empirical the  assumption  operant  that stimuli d i f f e r in their a b i l i t y to control  behavior*  behavior  by  evidence f o r  The  difference  i n control  food and l i g h t was not confounded  in the d i s c r i m i n a b i l i t y of the dimensions  that  of  pigeons'  with differences controlled  the  because: 1) the same values from a dimension that was  behaviors  common to both s t i m u l i served as the basis  of  the  comparison  and, 2) evidence was provided that t h i s dimension of both stimui controlled the behaviors,. In  addition  stimuli, this stimulus  to  demonstrating  research  also  such  illustrates  differences  the s u i t a b i l i t y  of  duration as a dimension with which to compare s t i m u l i .  Comparisons  of stimuli within a duration paradigm offer  advantages  over other procedures f o r comparing stimuli*  using duration as the basis necessity  between  of  scaling  f o r such  comparisons  several First,  avoids the  values of different dimensions.  Second,  the values of the duration dimension can be accurately s p e c i f i e d and controlled without the use of sophisticated procedures as  are needed  for specification  dimensions such as duration  is a  intensity  property  or  and  such  control of values from  wavelength.  Third,  because  of a l l stimuli* comarisons among any  53  number of s t i m u l i can be conducted w i t h i n a d u r a t i o n T h i s procedure f o r comparing s t i m u l i could several  areas  literature.  of  investigation  One  such  stimulus-response Shettleworth, reported  and  1972).  that  area  is  the  the  applied  stimulus  recent  example,  some  interest  in  controlling  pigeons*  have  auditory  stimuli  in  whereas  c o n t r o l by the a u d i t o r y s t i m u l i i s s u p e r i o r i n a v e r s i v e  c o n d i t i o n i n g or avoidance tasks Foree  &  LoLordo, 1974),  r e s u l t s are pigeons  consonant  find  predators  food  approach,  the  sight,  but  that,  Thus,  it  in  nature,  r e l y on a u d i t o r y cues when  However, i n these s t u d i e s the  attempts were made t o eguate the  1978;  LoLordo suggested that such  knowledge  the s t i m u l i t h a t c o n t r o l l e d behavior  discriminability,  behaviors,  (e.g., D e l i u s & Emmerton,  Foree and  with  by  food-reinforced  of  (e.g.,  investigators  s t i m u l i are more e f f e c t i v e than  to  control  stimulus-reinforcer s p e c i f i c i t i e s For  visual  within  be  paradigm.  dimensions of  were not i d e n t i f i e d ,  values of such  and  dimensions  i s not known whether a u d i t o r y  no for and  visual stimuli  per se are d i f f e r e n t i a l l y e f f e c t i v e  in appetitive  and  situations,  behavior  aversive  or  different  whether stimulus  pigeons* dimensions  controlled  by  situations*  Such ambiguity could be prevented by using a common For  duration  f o r comparing a v i s u a l and  as  auditory stimulus  under  could  whether  determine  a  basis  appetitive the  and  relative  s t i m u l i themselves i s s p e c i f i c to the  by  the  dimension to compare the s t i m u l i . dimension  example,  in  is  avoidance  using  tasks,  effectiveness  situation..  of  two  the an one the  54  The Bole of the Stimulus i n Control by Duration The present research demonstrated  that  the  stimulus one  selects to study duration discrimination can determine the speed of  acquisition as well as the accuracy of such discriminations.  This finding has certain implications f o r the study of discriminations  i n animals*  For example, an animal's accuracy  in discriminating the duration accurately  reflect  the  temporal  of  a  given  stimulus  may not  animal's timing a b i l i t i e s , because how  accurately the animal discriminates event  duration  depends i n  part on the nature of the event* The  present  results  are relevent  temporal discrimination i n animals 1976). animal's  This  theory  accuracy  inattention  to  in  proposed  (Church,  three  estimating  the signal  on  to a recent theory of Getty,  factors  that  temporal  to time  the duration  factors related to the signal results,  which  discriminating stimulus,  durations  could  when  an 1)  that  pigeons'  i s limited  and/or  in  the signal ends; and 3) itself.  by  The  present  accuracy i n  the nature  of the  be interpreted i n terms of either of the f i r s t  two factors proposed by t h i s theory. of  limit  some t r i a l s ; 2) v a r i a b i l i t y i n  duration  demonstrated  Lerner,  intervals:  starting to time the duration when the signal begins stopping  &  For example, the  presence  food on food-access t r i a l s may have ensured attention to the  signal on a l l such t r i a l s and/or decreased  the  variability  in  starting and^stopping to time the duration. The  present  research  may  also  theories of timing mechanisms i n animals* (1978),  f o r example,  have  implications f o r  Roberts  and  Church  recently proposed an elaborate theory of  55  i n t e r n a l clock control to describe timing processes i n the r a t . This  theory  suggests  that  rats possess some sort of i n t e r n a l  clock, similar i n many repects to the f a m i l i a r functions to measure durations. theory  stopwatch,  One e x p l i c i t assumption of t h i s  i s that the rats' clock, l i k e a stopwatch, measures time  independently of modality* Roberts  as  evidence  for this  assumption,  and Church demonstrated that rats were able to add time  spent in l i g h t to time spent i n sound and respond on of  that  the sum  of  these times.  the  basis  This was interpreted as evidence  that the rats timed l i g h t and sound at the same rate* The present  findings  suggest  that  i t i s important  to  explore the generality of such q u a l i t a t i v e aspects of control by duration  over  a wider range of s t i m u l i .  For example, although  rats may measure time independently of stimulus modality, i t i s conceivable that their measurement of time i s not independent of other  properties  of  the stimulus.  I t would be interesting to  investigate whether rats* timing of l i g h t and sound i s the same as  their  timing  of a stimulus such as food that: 1) i s a more  complex stimulus, 2) l i k e l y controls a s p e c i f i c behavior of the organism, organism*  and  3)  has  greater " b i o l o g i c a l importance" for the  Reference Note  Spetch, H, L. , & Wilkie, D, Mi Pigeons' keypecking topographies under a schedule of alternating food and water rewards* Paper presented at the meeting of the Canadian Psychological Association, Quebec C i t y , June 1979.  57  Eeferences  B e n i n g e r , R. J , , K e n d a l l , S, B., & V a n d e r w o l f , C* _H, The a b i l i t y of rats to discriminate their own b e h a v i o u r s . C a n a d i a n J o u r n a l o f P s y c h o l o g y , 1974, 28, 79-91. B l o u g h , D. S, D e l a y e d m a t c h i n g i n t h e p i g e o n . Journal of E x p e r i m e n t a l A n a l y s i s o f B e h a v i o r , 1959, 2, 151-160.  the  Botjer, S. W. , & Hearst, E . Food d e l i v e r y as a c o n d i t i o n a l s t i m u l u s : F e a t u r e l e a r n i n g and memory i n p i g e o n s . Journal of the Experimental A n a l y s i s o f B e h a v i o r , 1979, 31, 189207. Capaldi, E, J . A s e q u e n t i a l hypothesis of instrumental l e a r n i n g * I n W. K. S p e n c e , & J . T* Spence ( E d s * ) , The - P s y c h o l o g y of l e a r n i n g and m o t i v a t i o n , ( V o l . 1 ) * New Y o r k : Academic P r e s s , 1967. Capaldi, E. J . , & S p i v e y , J , E. I n t e r t r i a l r e i n f o r c e m e n t and a f t e r e f f e c t s a t 24-hour intervals* Psychonomic Science, 1964, X, 181-182* Carter, D. E- , £ Eckerman* D, A. S y m b o l i c m a t c h i n g by p i g e o n s : Rate o f l e a r n i n g complex discriminations predicted from s i m p l e d i s c r i m i n a t i o n s * S c i e n c e , 1975, 187, 662-665. Chow, K. L . S t i m u l u s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and r a t e o f l e a r n i n g v i s u a l discriminations by e x p e r i m e n t a l l y n a i v e monkeys* A m e r i c a n J o u r n a l o f P s y c h o l o g y , 1953, 66, 278-282, C h u r c h , fi. M., & D e l u t y , M. Z, B i s e c t i o n o f t e m p o r a l intervals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior P r o c e s s e s , 1977, 3, 216-228* Church, R, W., Getty, D, J , , & Lerner, N, D* Duration d i s c r i m i n a t i o n by r a t s , J o u r n a l o f E x p e r i m e n t a l P s y c h o l o g y : A n i m a l B e h a v i o r P r o c e s s e s , 1976, 2, 303-312. Cruse, D, B., Vitulli, W., & D e r t k e , M* D i s c r i m i n a t i v e and reinforcing properties o f two t y p e s of food pellets, Journal o f t h e E x p e r i m e n t a l A n a l y s i s o f B e h a v i o r , 1966, 9, 293-303, D e l i u s , J . D. & Emmerton, J . Stimulus-dependent asymmetry classical and i n s t r u m e n t a l d i s c r i m i n a t i o n learning p i g e o n s * The P s y c h o l o g i c a l R e c o r d , 1978, 2 8 , 425-434*_  in by  58  D o b r e c k a , C , S z w e j k o w s k a , G., & K o n o r s k i , J * Q u a l i t a t i v e . v e r s u s d i r e c t i o n a l c u e s i n two f o r m s o f d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n * Science, 1966, 1 5 3 , 87-89* Elsmore, T. F. Control of responding by s t i m u l u s d u r a t i o n * J o u r n a l o f - t h e E x p e r i m e n t a l A n a l y s i s o f B e h a v i o r , 1971, 16, 81-87,. E l s m o r e , T, F. D u r a t i o n d i s c r i m i n a t i o n : E f f e c t s of of stimulus presentation* Journal of the A n a l y s i s o f B e h a v i o r , 1972, J 8 , 465-469.  probability Experimental  F o r e e , D. D,, & LoLordo, V. M, A t t e n t i o n i n the pigeon: D i f f e r e n t i a l e f f e c t s of f o o d - g e t t i n g versus shock-avoidance procedures. Journal of C o m p a r a t i v e r and Physiological P s y c h o l o g y . 1975, 85, 551-558. G r e e n , D, M. , & Swets, J* p s y c h o p h y s i c s . New Y o r k :  A. Signal detection W i l e y , 1966,  theory  and  Harrison, J , W . , & B r i g g s , B. O r i e n t a t i o n and l e v e r r e s p o n d i n g i n a u d i t o r y d i s c r i m i n a t i o n s i n s g u i r r e l monkeys* J o u r n a l o f t h e E x p e r i m e n t a l A n a l y s i s o f B e h a v i o r , 1977, 28, 233-241; H e a r s t , E, D e l a y e d a l t e r n a t i o n i n t h e p i g e o n * Journal of E x p e r i m e n t a l A n a l y s i s o f B e h a v i o r , 1962, 5, 225^228.  the  Hersen, M, 6 Barlow., D. H. S i n g l e - c a s e e x p e r i m e n t a l - d e s i g n s : S t r a t e g i e s f o r s t u d y i n g b e h a v i o r change;. New Y o r k : Pergamon P r e s s , 1976. H o n i g , W. K*, S James, P. H* . B. Academic P r e s s , 1971,..  (Eds,*)* A n i m a l  memory* New  York:  H u l s e , S., F o w l e r , H., & H o n i g , W» K* (Eds.).. C o g n i t i v e aspects of animal behavior* Hillsdale, N. J * : Lawrence E r l b a u m A s s o c i a t e s , 1978, J a r v i k , B* E, D i s c r i m i n a t i o n o f c o l o r e d f o o d and f o o d signs by primates. Journal of Comparative and Physiological P s y c h o l o g y , 1953, 46, 390-392* K i n c h l a , J . D i s c r i m i n a t i o n o f two a u d i t o r y d u r a t i o n s by P e r c e p t i o n and P s y c h o p h y s i c s , 1970, 8, 299-307.  pigeons.  Lawicka, W, The role of stimulus modality in successive discrimination learning and differentiation learning. B u l l e t i n o f t h e P o l i s h Academy o f S c i e n c e s , 1964, 1_2, 3538,  59  Lydersen, T, , Perkins, D*, & Chairez, H,; Effects of f i x e d - r a t i o sample and choice requirements upon oddity matching. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1977, 25 , 97-10 1. !  Mackintosh, N. J . The psychology of animal learning* New York: Academic Press, 1974, Mackintosh, N, J . Stimulus control: Attentional factors* In W, K* Honig, and J . Et R, Staddon (Eds), Handbook of Operant Behavior* New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1977i „ Maki, W* S. , J r . , Moe, J. C*, & Bierley, C, M, Short-term memory for s t i m u l i , responses, and reinforcers. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 1977, 3, 156-177, Medin, D. L., Roberts, W. A. , & Davis, R* T, Processes of animal memory, H i l l s d a l e , N. J. : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1976. Perikel, J , J , , Richelle, M*, & Maurissen, J , Control of keypecking by the duration of a visual stimulus. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1974, 22, 131-134; P i a t t , J . R,, Kuch, D, 0., & Bitsgood, S, C. Rats* lever-press duration as psychophysical judgements of time. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior; 1973, J_9, 239-250; Pschirrer, M, Goal events as discriminative stimuli over extended i n t e r t r i a l intervals;; Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1972, 96, 425-432,; Reynolds, G, S. Discrimination and emission of temporal i n t e r v a l s by pigeons* Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1966, 9, 65-68, Reynolds, G. S,, & Catania, A* C* Temporal pigeons* Science, 1962, 135, 314-315.  discrimination  in  Rilling, M, Number of responses as a stimulus i n fixed i n t e r v a l and fixed r a t i o schedules; Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1967, 63, 60-65, Roberts, S,, & Church, R. M. Control of an i n t e r n a l clock; Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 1978, 4, 318-337, Seligman, M, E. P, On the generality of the laws of learning* Psychological Review, 1970, 77, 406-418,:  60  Shettleworth, S* J . Constraints on learning* Study of Behavior, 1 9 7 2 , 4 , 1-681 Sidman, ft.. Tactics of Books, Inc., 1960;.  scientific  research,.  Skinner, B. F. The behavior of organisms* Century-Crofts, 1 9 3 8 .  New  advances  i n the " r _  New York: Basic York:  Appleton-  Staddon, J . E. E. Temporal control, attention* and memory* Psychological Beview, 1 9 7 4 , 81., 3 7 5 - 3 9 1 . Stubbs, a . The discrimination of stimulus duration by pigeons* Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1 9 6 8 , 1 1 , 223-238,  Stubbs, D„ A. Scaling of stimulus duration by pigeons* Journal of the Experimental analysis of Behavior, 1 9 7 6 , 2 6 , 1 5 - 2 5 * Stubbs, D, a , Response bias and the discrimination of stimulus duration* Journal of the Experimental analysis of Behavior, 1976, J 5 ,  Wall,  243-250*  a, M,, & Goodrich, K. P. D i f f e r e n t i a l responding on reinforcement and nonreinforcement t r i a l s occurring i n fixed repeated patterns* Psychonomic Science, 1 9 6 4 , _1, 1 9 3 194,.  Wilkie, D. M. Delayed symbolic matching to sample i n the pigeon* The Psychological Becord, 1 9 7 8 , 2 8 , 4 6 3 - 4 6 9 . Wilkie, D. M,, S Masson, M. E,. attention in the pigeon: a reevaluation* Journal of the Experimental - analysis of Behavior, 1 9 7 6 , 2 6 , 2 0 7 - 2 1 2 . Wilkie, D. H, , Webster, J..B,, & Leader, L, . G, Unconfounding time and number discrimination i n a Mechner counting schedule* B u l l e t i n of the Psychonomic Society, 1 9 7 9 , 1 3 , 390-392,  Wilkie, D, M., & Wilson, C, S, Control of pigeons' keypecking by trace stimuli* Journal of t h e Experimental analysis of Behavior, 1 9 7 7 , 2 7 , 2 9 3 - 2 9 9 i :  Williams, B. a , Color alternation learning i n the pigeon under f i x e d - r a t i o schedules of reinforcement* Journal of the Experimental analysis of Behavior, 1 9 7 1 , 1_5_, 1 2 9 - 1 4 0 . Z i r i a x , J . fl,, & Silberberg, a . Discrimination and emission of different key-peck durations i n the pigeon,. Journal of Experimental Psychology: animal Behavior Processes, 1 9 7 8 , 4,  1-21.  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0100233/manifest

Comment

Related Items