Literature DB >> 30120727

Any reward will do: Effects of a reverse-reward contingency on size preference with pet dogs (Canis lupus familiaris).

Jonathan K Fernand1, Haleh Amanieh1, David J Cox1, Nicole R Dorey2.   

Abstract

The reverse-reward contingency (RRC) task involves presenting subjects with a choice between one plate containing a large amount of food and a second plate containing a small amount of food. Subjects are then required to select the smaller of the two options in order to receive the larger-magnitude reward. The RRC task is a commonly used paradigm for assessing complex cognition, such as inhibitory control, in subjects. To date, the RRC task has not been tested with pet dogs as subjects, and it may provide insights to their ability to perceive quantities of differing magnitudes. Nine dogs were tested in an RRC task involving three conditions. In Condition 1, plates of food were presented, and the dogs were allowed to consume their choice. In Condition 2, plates with different-sized symbols resembling the quantities of food in Condition 1 were presented, and dogs received food quantities of the same size as their choice (e.g., a larger-magnitude reward for selecting the plate with the larger shape). In Condition 3, the same plates were presented, but dogs received a reverse-sized quantity of food, relative to their choice (e.g., a smaller-magnitude reward for selecting the plate with the larger shape). A novel addition here to the traditional RRC task was the inclusion of a third, empty (control) plate that was present throughout all conditions, and no programmed consequences were provided when that plate was selected. Our results were consistent with the previous RRC literature: All dogs developed and maintained a preference for the larger stimulus option across conditions. The use of symbolic representations did not ameliorate performance on the RRC task. Applied implications are discussed.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Contingency reversal; Reverse-reward contingency; Visual discrimination

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30120727     DOI: 10.3758/s13420-018-0343-0

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


  28 in total

1.  Do domestic dogs show any evidence of being able to count?

Authors:  Rebecca E West; Robert J Young
Journal:  Anim Cogn       Date:  2002-08-16       Impact factor: 3.084

2.  Behavioral momentum theory: equations and applications.

Authors:  John A Nevin; Timothy A Shahan
Journal:  J Appl Behav Anal       Date:  2011

3.  Pointing At Smaller Food Amounts In An Analogue Of Boysen And Berntson's (1995) Procedure.

Authors:  A Silberberg; K Fujita
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1996-07       Impact factor: 2.468

4.  Wolf pack size and food acquisition.

Authors:  P A Schmidt; L D Mech
Journal:  Am Nat       Date:  1997-10       Impact factor: 3.926

5.  Suboptimal choice by dogs: when less is better than more.

Authors:  Kristina F Pattison; Thomas R Zentall
Journal:  Anim Cogn       Date:  2014-03-18       Impact factor: 3.084

6.  Spontaneous use of magnitude discrimination and ordination by the orangutan (Pongo pygmaeus).

Authors:  R W Shumaker; A M Palkovich; B B Beck; G A Guagnano; H Morowitz
Journal:  J Comp Psychol       Date:  2001-12       Impact factor: 2.231

7.  Rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta) spontaneously generalize to novel quantities in a reverse-reward contingency task.

Authors:  Jerald D Kralik
Journal:  J Comp Psychol       Date:  2011-11-28       Impact factor: 2.231

8.  Mangabeys (Cercocebus torquatus lunulatus) solve the reverse contingency task without a modified procedure.

Authors:  Anna Albiach-Serrano; Federico Guillén-Salazar; Josep Call
Journal:  Anim Cogn       Date:  2007-02-22       Impact factor: 3.084

9.  Size and reversal learning in the beagle dog as a measure of executive function and inhibitory control in aging.

Authors:  P Dwight Tapp; Christina T Siwak; Jimena Estrada; Elizabeth Head; Bruce A Muggenburg; Carl W Cotman; Norton W Milgram
Journal:  Learn Mem       Date:  2003 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 2.460

10.  What counts for dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) in a quantity discrimination task?

Authors:  Maria Elena Miletto Petrazzini; Clive D L Wynne
Journal:  Behav Processes       Date:  2015-11-19       Impact factor: 1.777

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.