Publicação
Number-of-responses matching in pigeons (Columba livia): Choice biases following delay and no-sample tests
| Resumo: | In a symbolic matching-to-sample task, pigeons learned to discriminate between 5 and 15 key pecks (samples): different choices were correct following the smaller and the larger response requirements. Subsequently, accuracy was tested in delayed matching, with the delay spent in darkness, contrarily to previous studies, that used illuminated delays. On average, delayed choices reflected indifference between the choices, but individual analyses showed different biases, replicating previous findings. It has been suggested that the end result of a delay may be similar to presenting no sample to begin with, so we compared preferences following a delay and following trials where no pecks were required. Performance in the two situations differed and, on zero-peck trials, a bias towards the “small” choice was found. Finally, to assess if the “small” bias was due to stimulus generalization, we compared zero-peck trials and trials with small response requirements (ranging from one to four) and found a discontinuity between zero and non-zero samples that may seem to be at odds with a generalization account. |
|---|---|
| Autores principais: | Pinto, Carlos |
| Outros Autores: | Mota, Márcio |
| Assunto: | Choice bias Delay Discrimination learning Fixed-ratio schedule Pigeon Symbolic matching-to-sample |
| Ano: | 2022 |
| País: | Portugal |
| Tipo de documento: | artigo |
| Tipo de acesso: | acesso aberto |
| Instituição associada: | Universidade do Minho |
| Idioma: | inglês |
| Origem: | RepositóriUM - Universidade do Minho |
| Resumo: | In a symbolic matching-to-sample task, pigeons learned to discriminate between 5 and 15 key pecks (samples): different choices were correct following the smaller and the larger response requirements. Subsequently, accuracy was tested in delayed matching, with the delay spent in darkness, contrarily to previous studies, that used illuminated delays. On average, delayed choices reflected indifference between the choices, but individual analyses showed different biases, replicating previous findings. It has been suggested that the end result of a delay may be similar to presenting no sample to begin with, so we compared preferences following a delay and following trials where no pecks were required. Performance in the two situations differed and, on zero-peck trials, a bias towards the “small” choice was found. Finally, to assess if the “small” bias was due to stimulus generalization, we compared zero-peck trials and trials with small response requirements (ranging from one to four) and found a discontinuity between zero and non-zero samples that may seem to be at odds with a generalization account. |
|---|