Premium
DISCRIMINATION TRAINING FACILITATES PIGEONS' PERFORMANCE ON ONE‐TRIAL‐PER‐DAY DELAYED MATCHING OF KEY LOCATION
Author(s) -
Willson Robert J.,
Wilkie Donald M.
Publication year - 1991
Publication title -
journal of the experimental analysis of behavior
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.75
H-Index - 61
eISSN - 1938-3711
pISSN - 0022-5002
DOI - 10.1901/jeab.1991.55-201
Subject(s) - pecking order , psychology , schedule , statistics , matching (statistics) , audiology , mathematics , medicine , computer science , biology , evolutionary biology , operating system
Six pigeons were tested on a one‐trial‐per‐day variant of delayed matching of key location. In one condition, a trial began with the illumination of a pair of quasi‐randomly selected pecking keys in a large 10‐key test box. Pigeons' pecks to one key (the sample) were reinforced with 8‐second access to grain on a variable‐interval 30‐second schedule, whereas pecks to the other key (the distractor) had no scheduled consequences. In the second condition, the nonreinforced distractor was not presented. In both conditions, subjects were removed from the apparatus after 15 minutes and placed in a holding cage. Subjects were subsequently replaced in the box after a delay (retention interval) of 30 seconds and were reexposed to the illuminated sample and distractor keys for 1 minute. If a pigeon made more pecks to the sample during this interval, the distractor was extinguished and subsequent pecks to the sample were reinforced on the previous schedule for an additional 15 minutes. If, however, a pigeon made more pecks to the distractor, both keys were extinguished and the subject was returned to its home cage. For all subjects, matching‐to‐sample accuracy was higher in the first condition. In a second experiment, the retention interval was increased to 5, 15, and 30 minutes, and then to 1, 2, 4, 8, 12, and 24 hours. Most subjects remembered the correct key location for up to 4 hours, and in one case, up to 24 hours, demonstrating a spatial‐memory proficiency far better than previously reported in this species on delayed matching tasks. The results are discussed in terms of the commonly held distinction between working and reference memory.