Abstract

The delayed matching-to-sample (DMS) task is widely employed to assess memory in a range of non-human animals. On the standard “common outcomes” (CO) DMS task, correct performance following either sample stimulus results in reinforcement. In contrast, on a “differential outcomes” (DO) DMS task, the outcome following either sample stimulus is different. One of the most consistent findings in the comparative literature is that performance under a DO condition is superior to that under a CO condition. The superior performance is attributed to the fact the DO condition enhances memory for the sample stimulus by tagging each sample with a discrete reward. Here, we investigate an alternative possibility, that pigeons use positional mediation during the delay under DO, but not CO, conditions. To test this, we tracked the head position of pigeons performing a DO (n = 4) or CO (n = 4) task. Consistent with the positional mediation account, all subjects in the DO condition displayed evidence of positional mediation. Surprisingly, positional mediation was not unique to subjects in the DO condition, with subjects in the CO condition also displaying evidence of mediation.

Highlights

  • We investigated the possibility that the differential outcomes effect (DOE) is the result of pigeons behaving differentially during the delay

  • Skinner’s (1948) initial interpretation was that these behaviors emerge due to the accidental pairing of a random behavior and reward delivery, it has been argued that the behavior may reflect stimulus substitution or a form of species-typical appetitive behavior (Staddon & Simmelhag, 1971; Timberlake & Lucas, 1985)

  • Why does the stronger effect of rewards under the differential outcomes” (DO) condition not translate into higher performance on nonrewarded trials? The findings of the current study suggest it may be due to the absence of reward on these trials leading the animal to be distracted by other reinforcing behaviors (Ro)

Read more

Summary

Method

The subjects were eight pigeons (Columba livia). Each pigeon was maintained at 85% of its freefeeding weight for the duration of the experiment. The birds were trained in an open-top operant chamber. The operant chamber was built in house. The front wall of each chamber contained a Perspex panel that provided access to a Philips 170s 17-in. Between the Perspex panel and computer monitor was an Elo 17-in. The Perspex panel contained six 60-mm × 60mm holes arranged in two rows of three. Tracking the pigeon was done by color, with a small blue ball attached to each pigeon’s head and a small green ball to their back. Morphological openings were used to remove small objects from the foreground of the binary images, and morphological closings were used to fill small holes from the foreground of the binary images. The center of each object was undistorted using OpenCV's undistortPoints function. The tracker outputed the 3D coordinates to a file that was integrated with trial-event data

Procedure
Results
Discussion
Summary
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call