Literature DB >> 20400731

Response variability in pigeons in a Pavlovian task.

W David Stahlman1, Michael E Young, Aaron P Blaisdell.   

Abstract

Instrumental response variation is inversely related to reward probability. Gharib, Derby, and Roberts (2001) theorized that individuals behave more variably when their expectation of reward is low. They postulate that this behavioral rule assists the discovery of alternative actions when a target response is unlikely to be reinforced. This suggests that response variability may be unaffected in a situation in which an animal's behavior is inconsequential to outcome delivery. We trained 6 pigeons in a within-subjects Pavlovian autoshaping procedure. On any given trial, the pigeons were presented with one of six colored discs on a touchscreen; each stimulus was associated with a particular probability of food, ranging from 100% to 0.6%. Pecking was more variable with low probabilities of food delivery, thus extending the rule relating variability and expectation to a Pavlovian situation.

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20400731     DOI: 10.3758/LB.38.2.111

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Learn Behav        ISSN: 1543-4494            Impact factor:   1.986


  19 in total

1.  Timing and the control of variation.

Authors:  A Gharib; S Derby; S Roberts
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process       Date:  2001-04

2.  Stability and variability in extinction.

Authors:  A Neuringer; N Kornell; M Olufs
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process       Date:  2001-01

3.  Some temporal and sequential properties of behavior during conditioning and extinction.

Authors:  J R MILLENSON; H M HURWITZ
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1961-04       Impact factor: 2.468

4.  Force emission during bar pressing.

Authors:  J M NOTTERMAN
Journal:  J Exp Psychol       Date:  1959-11

5.  Variability of response location for pigeons responding under continuous reinforcement, intermittent reinforcement, and extinction.

Authors:  D A Eckerman; R N Lanson
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1969-01       Impact factor: 2.468

6.  Auto-maintenance in the pigeon: sustained pecking despite contingent non-reinforcement.

Authors:  D R Williams; H Williams
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1969-07       Impact factor: 2.468

7.  Response variability in the white rat during conditioning, extinction, and reconditioning.

Authors:  J J ANTONITIS
Journal:  J Exp Psychol       Date:  1951-10

8.  Effect of reward probability on spatial and temporal variation.

Authors:  W David Stahlman; Seth Roberts; Aaron P Blaisdell
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process       Date:  2010-01

9.  Reinforced variability decreases with approach to reinforcers.

Authors:  C Cherot; A Jones; A Neuringer
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process       Date:  1996-10

10.  Auto-shaping of the pigeon's key-peck.

Authors:  P L Brown; H M Jenkins
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1968-01       Impact factor: 2.468

View more
  9 in total

1.  View-invariance learning in object recognition by pigeons depends on error-driven associative learning processes.

Authors:  Fabian A Soto; Jeffrey Y M Siow; Edward A Wasserman
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2012-04-17       Impact factor: 1.886

2.  The Modulation of Operant Variation by the Probability, Magnitude, and Delay of Reinforcement.

Authors:  W David Stahlman; Aaron P Blaisdell
Journal:  Learn Motiv       Date:  2011-08-01

3.  Midsession shifts in reward probability and the control of behavioral variability.

Authors:  W David Stahlman; Kenneth J Leising
Journal:  Learn Behav       Date:  2016-09       Impact factor: 1.986

4.  Unexpected downshifts in reward magnitude induce variation in human behavior.

Authors:  Greg Jensen; Patricia D Stokes; Anthea Paterniti; Peter D Balsam
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2014-04

5.  Interval timing, temporal averaging, and cue integration.

Authors:  Benjamin J De Corte; Matthew S Matell
Journal:  Curr Opin Behav Sci       Date:  2016-04

6.  Pigeon and human performance in a multi-armed bandit task in response to changes in variable interval schedules.

Authors:  Deborah Racey; Michael E Young; Dennis Garlick; Jennifer Ngoc-Minh Pham; Aaron P Blaisdell
Journal:  Learn Behav       Date:  2011-09       Impact factor: 1.986

7.  5-HT7 receptor activation: procognitive and antiamnesic effects.

Authors:  A Meneses; G Perez-Garcia; G Liy-Salmeron; T Ponce-López; E Lacivita; M Leopoldo
Journal:  Psychopharmacology (Berl)       Date:  2014-07-31       Impact factor: 4.530

8.  Learning by Association in Plants.

Authors:  Monica Gagliano; Vladyslav V Vyazovskiy; Alexander A Borbély; Mavra Grimonprez; Martial Depczynski
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2016-12-02       Impact factor: 4.379

9.  Using touchscreen equipped operant chambers to study animal cognition. Benefits, limitations, and advice.

Authors:  Benjamin M Seitz; Kelsey McCune; Maggie MacPherson; Luisa Bergeron; Aaron P Blaisdell; Corina J Logan
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-02-19       Impact factor: 3.240

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.