Inhibition and paradoxical choice.

IF 1.9 4区 心理学 Q3 BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
Learning & Behavior Pub Date : 2023-12-01 Epub Date: 2023-05-05 DOI:10.3758/s13420-023-00584-2
Valeria V González, Aaron P Blaisdell
{"title":"Inhibition and paradoxical choice.","authors":"Valeria V González, Aaron P Blaisdell","doi":"10.3758/s13420-023-00584-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The present study evaluated the role of inhibition in paradoxical choice in pigeons. In a paradoxical choice procedure, pigeons receive a choice between two alternatives. Choosing the \"suboptimal\" alternative is followed 20% of the time by one cue (the S+) that is always reinforced, and 80% of the time by another cue (S-) that is never reinforced. Thus, this alternative leads to an overall reinforcement rate of 20%. Choosing the \"optimal\" alternative, however, is followed by one of two cues (S3 or S4), each reinforced 50% of the time. Thus, this alternative leads to an overall reinforcement rate of 50%. González and Blaisdell (2021) reported that development of paradoxical choice was positively correlated to the development of inhibition to the S- (signal that no food will be delivered on that trial) post-choice stimulus. The current experiment tested the hypothesis that inhibition to a post-choice stimulus is causally related to suboptimal preference. Following acquisition of suboptimal preference, pigeons received two manipulations: in one condition one of the cues in the optimal alternative (S4) was extinguished and, in another condition, the S- cue was partially reinforced. When tested on the choice task afterward, both manipulations resulted in a decrement in suboptimal preference. This result is paradoxical given that both manipulations made the suboptimal alternative the richer option. We discuss the implications of our results, arguing that inhibition of a post-choice cue increases attraction to or value of that choice.</p>","PeriodicalId":49914,"journal":{"name":"Learning & Behavior","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10716068/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Learning & Behavior","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3758/s13420-023-00584-2","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/5/5 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The present study evaluated the role of inhibition in paradoxical choice in pigeons. In a paradoxical choice procedure, pigeons receive a choice between two alternatives. Choosing the "suboptimal" alternative is followed 20% of the time by one cue (the S+) that is always reinforced, and 80% of the time by another cue (S-) that is never reinforced. Thus, this alternative leads to an overall reinforcement rate of 20%. Choosing the "optimal" alternative, however, is followed by one of two cues (S3 or S4), each reinforced 50% of the time. Thus, this alternative leads to an overall reinforcement rate of 50%. González and Blaisdell (2021) reported that development of paradoxical choice was positively correlated to the development of inhibition to the S- (signal that no food will be delivered on that trial) post-choice stimulus. The current experiment tested the hypothesis that inhibition to a post-choice stimulus is causally related to suboptimal preference. Following acquisition of suboptimal preference, pigeons received two manipulations: in one condition one of the cues in the optimal alternative (S4) was extinguished and, in another condition, the S- cue was partially reinforced. When tested on the choice task afterward, both manipulations resulted in a decrement in suboptimal preference. This result is paradoxical given that both manipulations made the suboptimal alternative the richer option. We discuss the implications of our results, arguing that inhibition of a post-choice cue increases attraction to or value of that choice.

Abstract Image

抑制与矛盾选择
本研究评估了抑制在鸽子悖论选择中的作用。在悖论选择过程中,鸽子会在两种选择中做出选择。在选择 "次优 "选项后,20%的时间里会有一个提示(S+)始终得到强化,80%的时间里会有另一个提示(S-)从未得到强化。因此,这种选择导致的总体强化率为 20%。然而,选择 "最佳 "选择后,会出现两种提示(S3 或 S4)中的一种,每种提示的强化率为 50%。因此,这种选择导致的总体强化率为 50%。González和Blaisdell(2021年)报告说,悖论选择的发展与选择后刺激S-(该试验不会提供食物的信号)抑制的发展呈正相关。本实验检验了对选择后刺激的抑制与次优偏好存在因果关系的假设。在获得次优偏好后,鸽子接受了两种操作:在一种情况下,最优选择(S4)中的一个线索被熄灭;在另一种情况下,S-线索被部分强化。在之后的选择任务测试中,这两种操作都导致了次优偏好的下降。鉴于这两种操作都使得次优选择成为更丰富的选择,因此这一结果是矛盾的。我们讨论了我们的结果的意义,认为抑制选择后线索会增加对该选择的吸引力或价值。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Learning & Behavior
Learning & Behavior 医学-动物学
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
5.60%
发文量
50
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Learning & Behavior publishes experimental and theoretical contributions and critical reviews concerning fundamental processes of learning and behavior in nonhuman and human animals. Topics covered include sensation, perception, conditioning, learning, attention, memory, motivation, emotion, development, social behavior, and comparative investigations.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信