{"title":"The problem with two-event sequence learning by pigeons","authors":"Thomas R. Zentall, Daniel N. Peng","doi":"10.1007/s10071-024-01906-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Bonobos appear to show little evidence of learning to make one response (R1) to an AB sequence and a different response (R2) to sequences BB, AA, and BA (Lind et al. PLoS ONE 18(9):e0290546, 2023), yet under different conditions, pigeons can learn this (Weisman et al. Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 6(4):312, 1980). Aspects of the bonobo procedure may have contributed to this failure. Most important, no response was required in the presence of the stimuli to encourage attention to them. Furthermore, learning to make one response to the target sequence and another to the other sequences involves a bias that allows for better than chance responding. With the two-alternative forced-choice procedure used with the bonobos, the R1 response is correct for one sequence, whereas the R2 response is correct for three sequences. To correct for this, there are three times as many AB trials as each of the other sequences. However, this correction allows a bias to develop in which reinforcement often can be obtained by using only the last stimulus seen as the basis of choice (e.g., when the last stimulus is B respond R1 when the last stimulus is A respond R2). This solution yields reinforcement on five out of six, or 83%, of the trials. In the present experiment with pigeons, using this two-alternative forced choice procedure, most subjects tended to base their choice on the last-seen stimulus. This design allowed subjects to use a suboptimal but relatively effective choice strategy.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":7879,"journal":{"name":"Animal Cognition","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11450055/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Animal Cognition","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10071-024-01906-1","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Bonobos appear to show little evidence of learning to make one response (R1) to an AB sequence and a different response (R2) to sequences BB, AA, and BA (Lind et al. PLoS ONE 18(9):e0290546, 2023), yet under different conditions, pigeons can learn this (Weisman et al. Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 6(4):312, 1980). Aspects of the bonobo procedure may have contributed to this failure. Most important, no response was required in the presence of the stimuli to encourage attention to them. Furthermore, learning to make one response to the target sequence and another to the other sequences involves a bias that allows for better than chance responding. With the two-alternative forced-choice procedure used with the bonobos, the R1 response is correct for one sequence, whereas the R2 response is correct for three sequences. To correct for this, there are three times as many AB trials as each of the other sequences. However, this correction allows a bias to develop in which reinforcement often can be obtained by using only the last stimulus seen as the basis of choice (e.g., when the last stimulus is B respond R1 when the last stimulus is A respond R2). This solution yields reinforcement on five out of six, or 83%, of the trials. In the present experiment with pigeons, using this two-alternative forced choice procedure, most subjects tended to base their choice on the last-seen stimulus. This design allowed subjects to use a suboptimal but relatively effective choice strategy.
期刊介绍:
Animal Cognition is an interdisciplinary journal offering current research from many disciplines (ethology, behavioral ecology, animal behavior and learning, cognitive sciences, comparative psychology and evolutionary psychology) on all aspects of animal (and human) cognition in an evolutionary framework.
Animal Cognition publishes original empirical and theoretical work, reviews, methods papers, short communications and correspondence on the mechanisms and evolution of biologically rooted cognitive-intellectual structures.
The journal explores animal time perception and use; causality detection; innate reaction patterns and innate bases of learning; numerical competence and frequency expectancies; symbol use; communication; problem solving, animal thinking and use of tools, and the modularity of the mind.