Abstract
In simultaneous matching-to-sample and oddity-from-sample tasks, briefly delaying the offset of trial stimuli following an incorrect choice response was found to facilitate task acquisition (Experiment 1). Because thispenalty-time procedure also resulted in longer choice-response latencies, it was hypothesized that any procedure that increased response latency would facilitate task acquisition. However, in Experiment 2, no evidence of facilitation was found when a 2-sec pause was imposed prior to the choice response. The results of Experiment 3 suggest that penalty-time facilitation of acquisition was not due to either the added differential outcome on correct versus incorrect trials (i.e., incorrect choice responses do not darken the keys as do correct choice responses) or the aversive effects associated with trial prolongation (i.e., incorrect responses not only result in the absence of reinforcement but also delay the start of the next trial). Instead, results suggest that birds trained with the penalty-time procedure review the trial stimuli following an incorrect choice.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Bourne, L. E., Jr.,Guy, D. E., Dodd, D. H., &Justesen, D. R. (1965). Concept identification: The effects of varying length and informational components of the intertrial interval.Journal of Experimental Psychology,69, 624–629.
Brodigan, D. L., &Peterson, G. B. (1976). Two-choice conditional discrimination performance of pigeons as a function of reward expectancy, prechoice delay, and domesticity.Animal Learning & Behavior,4, 121–124.
Cumming, W. W., &Berryman, R. (1961). Some data on matching behavior in the pigeon.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,4, 281–284.
Edwards, C. A., Jagielo, J. A., Zentall, T. R., &Hogan, D. E. (1982). Acquired equivalence and distinctiveness in matching to sample by pigeons: Mediation by reinforcer-specific expectancies.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,8, 244–259.
Eninger, M. U. (1953). The role of generalized approach and avoidance tendencies in brightness discrimination.Journal of Comparative & Physiological Psychology,46, 398–402.
Estes, W. K. (1969). Reinforcement in human learning. In J. Tapp (Ed.),Punishment and aversive behavior (pp. 63–94). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Ferster, C. B., &Skinner, B. F. (1957).Schedules of reinforcement. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Muenzinger, K. F., &Fletcher, F. M. (1937). Motivation in learning: VII. The effect of an enforced delay at the point of choice in the visual discrimination habit.Journal of Comparative Psychology,23, 383–392.
Muenzinger, K. F., &Wood, A. (1935). Motivation in learning: IV. The function of punishment as determined by its temporal relation to the act of choice in the visual discrimination habit.Journal of Comparative Psychology,20, 95–106.
Nevin, J. A., &Berryman, R. (1963). A note on chaining and temporal discrimination.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,6, 109–113.
Peterson, G. B. (1984). How expectancies guide behavior. In H. L. Roitblat, T. G. Bever, & H. S. Terrace (Eds),Animal cognition (pp. 135–148). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Peterson, G. B., &Trapold, M. A. (1980). Effects of altering outcome expectancies on pigeons’ delayed conditional discrimination performance.Learning & Motivation,11, 267–288.
Riley, D. A., &Roitblat, H. L. (1978). Selective attention and related cognitive processes in pigeons. In S. H. Hülse, H. Fowler, & W. K. Honig (Eds.),Cognitive processes in animal behavior (pp. 249–276). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Roberts, W. A., &Grant, D. S. (1976). Studies of short-term memory in the pigeon using the delayed matching to sample procedure. In D. L. Medin, W. A. Roberts, & R. T. Davis (Eds.),Processes of animal memory (pp. 79–112). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Urcuioli, P. J., &Nevin, J. A. (1975). Transfer of hue matching in pigeons.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,24, 149–155.
Wilkie, D. M., &Spetch, M. L. (1981). Pigeons’ delayed matching to sample errors are not always due to forgetting.Behaviour Analysis Letters,1, 317–323.
Zentall, T. R., Edwards, C. A., Moore, B. S., &Hogan, D. E. (1981). Identity: The basis for both matching and oddity learning in pigeons.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,7, 70–86.
Zentall, T. R., &Hogan, D. E. (1974). Abstract concept learning in the pigeon.Journal of Experimental Psychology,102, 393–398.
Zentall, T. R., &Hogan, D. E. (1976). Pigeons can learn identity or difference, or both.Science,191, 408–409.
Zentall, T. R., &Hogan, D. E. (1977). Short-term proactive inhibition in the pigeon.Learning & Motivation,8, 367–386.
Zentall, T. R., &Hogan, D. E. (1978). Same/different concept learning in the pigeon: The effect of negative instances and prior adaptation to the transfer stimuli.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,30, 177–186.
Zentall, T. R., Hogan, D. E., &Edwards, C. A. (1980). Oddity learning in the pigeon: Effect of negative instances, correction, and number of incorrect alternatives.Animal Learning & Behavior,8, 621–629.
Zentall, T. R., Hogan, D. E., &Edwards, C. A. (1984). Cognitive factors in conditional learning by pigeons. In H. L. Roitblat, T. G. Bever, & H. S. Terrace (Eds.),Animal cognition (pp. 389–405). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This research was supported by National Science Foundation Grant BNS-8418275 to Thomas R. Zentall and Peter J. Urcuioli and by a grant from the University of Kentucky Research Foundation. We thank Janice N. Steirn for her helpful comments on the manuscript.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Strength, V., Zentall, T.R. Matching and oddity learning in pigeons: Effects of penalty time for incorrect responding. Animal Learning & Behavior 19, 49–57 (1991). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03197859
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03197859