Literature DB >> 25447511

Endpoint distinctiveness facilitates analogical mapping in pigeons.

Carl Erick Hagmann1, Robert G Cook2.   

Abstract

Analogical thinking necessitates mapping shared relations across two separate domains. We investigated whether pigeons could learn faster with ordinal mapping of relations across two physical dimensions (circle size & choice spatial position) relative to random mapping of these relations. Pigeons were trained to relate six circular samples of different sizes to horizontally positioned choice locations in a six alternative matching-to-sample task. Three pigeons were trained in a mapped condition in which circle size mapped directly onto choice spatial position. Three other pigeons were trained in a random condition in which the relations between size and choice position were arbitrarily assigned. The mapped group showed an advantage over the random group in acquiring this task. In a subsequent second phase, relations between the dimensions were ordinally reversed for the mapped group and re-randomized for the random group. There was no difference in how quickly matching accuracy re-emerged in the two groups, although the mapped group eventually performed more accurately. Analyses suggested this mapped advantage was likely due to endpoint distinctiveness and the benefits of proximity errors during choice responding rather than a conceptual or relational advantage attributable to the common or ordinal mapping of the two dimensions. This potential difficulty in mapping relations across dimensions may limit the pigeons' capacity for more advanced types of analogical reasoning. This article is part of a Special Issue entitled: Tribute to Tom Zentall.
Copyright © 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Analogy; Categorization; Dimensional mapping; Pigeons; Relational learning

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25447511      PMCID: PMC4405791          DOI: 10.1016/j.beproc.2014.11.007

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Behav Processes        ISSN: 0376-6357            Impact factor:   1.777


  35 in total

1.  Evidence for a conceptual account of same-different discrimination learning in the pigeon.

Authors:  M E Young; E A Wasserman
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2001-12

2.  Same-different conceptualization by baboons (Papio papio): the role of entropy.

Authors:  E A Wasserman; J Fagot; M E Young
Journal:  J Comp Psychol       Date:  2001-03       Impact factor: 2.231

3.  Same/different concept learning in the pigeon: the effect of negative instances and prior adaptation to transfer stimuli.

Authors:  T R Zentall; E Hogan
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1978-09       Impact factor: 2.468

4.  Analogical reasoning in a capuchin monkey (Cebus apella).

Authors:  Erica Hoy Kennedy; Dorothy M Fragaszy
Journal:  J Comp Psychol       Date:  2008-05       Impact factor: 2.231

5.  Analogical reasoning and the differential outcome effect: transitory bridging of the conceptual gap for rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta).

Authors:  Timothy M Flemming; Roger K R Thompson; Michael J Beran; David A Washburn
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process       Date:  2011-07

6.  Implicit and explicit category learning by macaques (Macaca mulatta) and humans (Homo sapiens).

Authors:  J David Smith; Michael J Beran; Matthew J Crossley; Joseph Boomer; F Gregory Ashby
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process       Date:  2010-01

7.  Oddity learning in the pigeon as a function of the number of incorrect alternatives.

Authors:  T R Zentall; D E Hogan; C A Edwards; E Hearst
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process       Date:  1980-07

8.  Pigeons' categorization may be exclusively nonanalytic.

Authors:  J David Smith; F Gregory Ashby; Mark E Berg; Matthew S Murphy; Brian Spiering; Robert G Cook; Randolph C Grace
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2011-04

9.  A profound disparity revisited: Perception and judgment of abstract identity relations by chimpanzees, human infants, and monkeys.

Authors:  R K Thompson; D L Oden
Journal:  Behav Processes       Date:  1995-12       Impact factor: 1.777

10.  Great apes' capacities to recognize relational similarity.

Authors:  Daniel B M Haun; Josep Call
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  2008-12-25
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.