Literature DB >> 22428983

Reversal learning in rats (Rattus norvegicus) and pigeons (Columba livia): qualitative differences in behavioral flexibility.

Rebecca M Rayburn-Reeves1, Jessica P Stagner, Chelsea R Kirk, Thomas R Zentall.   

Abstract

Research has shown that pigeons given a simultaneous visually based discrimination reversal, in which a single reversal occurs at the midpoint of each session, consistently show anticipation prior to the reversal as well as perseveration after the reversal, suggesting that they use a less effective cue (time or trial number into the session) than what would be optimal to maximize reinforcement (local feedback from the most recent trials). In the present research, pigeons (Columba livia) and rats (Rattus norvegicus) were tested with a simultaneous spatial discrimination midsession reversal. Pigeons showed remarkably similar errors in anticipation and perseveration as with visual stimuli, thereby continuing to show the suboptimal use of time as a cue, whereas rats showed no anticipatory errors and very few perseverative errors, suggesting that they used local feedback as a cue, thus more nearly optimizing reinforcement. To further test the rats' flexibility, they were then tested with a variable point of reversal and then with multiple points of reversal within a session. Results showed that the rats effectively maximized reinforcement by developing an approximation to a win-stay/lose-shift rule. The greater efficiency shown by rats with this task suggests that they are better able to use the feedback from their preceding choice as the basis of their future choice. The difference in cue preference further suggests a qualitative difference in acquisition of the midsession reversal task between pigeons and rats.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22428983     DOI: 10.1037/a0026311

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Comp Psychol        ISSN: 0021-9940            Impact factor:   2.231


  17 in total

1.  Midsession reversal learning by pigeons: Effect on accuracy of increasing the number of stimuli associated with one of the alternatives.

Authors:  Thomas R Zentall; Daniel N Peng; Dalton C House; Ryan Yadav
Journal:  Learn Behav       Date:  2019-12       Impact factor: 1.986

2.  Pigeons show near-optimal win-stay/lose-shift performance on a simultaneous-discrimination, midsession reversal task with short intertrial intervals.

Authors:  Rebecca M Rayburn-Reeves; Jennifer R Laude; Thomas R Zentall
Journal:  Behav Processes       Date:  2012-11-01       Impact factor: 1.777

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.  Repeated acquisition and discrimination reversal in the squirrel monkey (Saimiri sciureus).

Authors:  Brian D Kangas; Jack Bergman
Journal:  Anim Cogn       Date:  2013-06-22       Impact factor: 3.084

5.  Rats' midsession reversal performance: the nature of the response.

Authors:  Aaron P Smith; Kristina F Pattison; Thomas R Zentall
Journal:  Learn Behav       Date:  2016-03       Impact factor: 1.986

6.  Midsession reversal learning: why do pigeons anticipate and perseverate?

Authors:  Jessica P Stagner; Daniel M Michler; Rebecca M Rayburn-Reeves; Jennifer R Laude; Thomas R Zentall
Journal:  Learn Behav       Date:  2013-03       Impact factor: 1.986

7.  Midsession reversals with pigeons: visual versus spatial discriminations and the intertrial interval.

Authors:  Jennifer R Laude; Jessica P Stagner; Rebecca Rayburn-Reeves; Thomas R Zentall
Journal:  Learn Behav       Date:  2014-03       Impact factor: 1.986

8.  The Organization of Behavior Over Time: Insights from Mid-Session Reversal.

Authors:  Rebecca M Rayburn-Reeves; Robert G Cook
Journal:  Comp Cogn Behav Rev       Date:  2016

9.  Pigeons' use of cues in a repeated five-trial-sequence, single-reversal task.

Authors:  Rebecca M Rayburn-Reeves; Thomas R Zentall
Journal:  Learn Behav       Date:  2013-06       Impact factor: 1.986

10.  Numerical averaging in mice.

Authors:  Ezgi Gür; Yalçın Akın Duyan; Fuat Balcı
Journal:  Anim Cogn       Date:  2020-11-04       Impact factor: 3.084

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.