English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Pigeons were trained to perform two independent zero-delay conditional discriminations involving the same differential outcomes (i.e., food vs. a feeder light) and were then tested by replacing the samples from one of the tasks with those from the other. Differential responding to the two samples was required in Phase 1, in Phase 2, in neither phase, or in both phases. Half the pigeons in each group were then tested with associations that were either consistent with the presumed outcome expectancies established during Phases 1 and 2 (positive transfer condition) or inconsistent with those expectancies (negative transfer condition). The magnitude of the transfer effect was largest in the group that could use differential sample responding as a cue to mediate transfer, but significant transfer effects were also found in the groups that could use only outcome expectancies. Thus, differential sample responding contributes to, but does not account for, the differential-outcomes effect.

Pigeons transfer between conditional discriminations with differential outcomes in the absence of differential-sample-responding cues