Literature DB >> 32772333

The functional equivalence of two variants of the suboptimal choice task: choice proportion and response latency as measures of value.

Alejandro Macías1,2, Valeria V González3, Armando Machado4,5, Marco Vasconcelos4,5.   

Abstract

In the suboptimal-choice task, birds systematically choose the leaner but informative option (suboptimal) over the richer but non-informative option (optimal). The task has two variations. In the standard task, the optimal option includes two terminal link stimuli. In the original task, it includes a single terminal link stimulus. Two models, the temporal information account (Cunningham and Shahan, J Exp Psychol Anim Learn Cogn 44:1-22, 2018) and the ∆-∑ hypothesis (González et al., J Exp Anal Behav 113:591-608, 2020), presuppose that these procedures are equivalent, but no formal comparison is available. Here we test whether or not these procedures are functionally equivalent. One group of pigeons was trained with the standard procedure, another group with the original procedure, and a third group was trained with a hybrid of the other two (i.e., the two options were the optimal links of the standard and original procedures). Our findings indicate that the number of terminal link stimuli in the optimal option is inconsequential vis-à-vis choice. Moreover, our findings also indicate that latencies to respond are a sensitive metric of value and choice. As predicted by the Sequential Choice Model, we were able to predict simultaneous choices from the latencies of sequential choices and observed a substantial shortening of latencies during simultaneous choices.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Latencies; Pigeon; Sequential choice model; Stimuli; Suboptimal choice

Year:  2020        PMID: 32772333     DOI: 10.1007/s10071-020-01418-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Anim Cogn        ISSN: 1435-9448            Impact factor:   3.084


  46 in total

1.  Cognitive mechanisms of risky choice: is there an evaluation cost?

Authors:  Justine Aw; Tiago Monteiro; Marco Vasconcelos; Alex Kacelnik
Journal:  Behav Processes       Date:  2011-10-12       Impact factor: 1.777

2.  Freedom and knowledge: an experimental analysis of preference in pigeons.

Authors:  A C Catania
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1975-07       Impact factor: 2.468

3.  Preference for free choice over forced choice in pigeons.

Authors:  A C Catania; T Sagvolden
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1980-07       Impact factor: 2.468

4.  Percentage reinforcement and choice.

Authors:  E Fantino; R Dunn; W Meck
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1979-11       Impact factor: 2.468

5.  Suboptimal choice in pigeons: Does the predictive value of the conditioned reinforcer alone determine choice?

Authors:  Jacob P Case; Thomas R Zentall
Journal:  Behav Processes       Date:  2018-08-02       Impact factor: 1.777

6.  Choice with uncertain outcomes: conditioned reinforcement effects.

Authors:  R Dunn; M L Spetch
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1990-03       Impact factor: 2.468

7.  Testing the boundaries of "paradoxical" predictions: Pigeons do disregard bad news.

Authors:  Inês Fortes; Marco Vasconcelos; Armando Machado
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Anim Learn Cogn       Date:  2016-09-05       Impact factor: 2.478

Review 8.  Suboptimal choice, reward-predictive signals, and temporal information.

Authors:  Paul J Cunningham; Timothy A Shahan
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Anim Learn Cogn       Date:  2018-01       Impact factor: 2.478

9.  Rats engage in suboptimal choice when the delay to food is sufficiently long.

Authors:  Paul J Cunningham; Timothy A Shahan
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Anim Learn Cogn       Date:  2019-05-09       Impact factor: 2.478

10.  Suboptimal choice in rats: Incentive salience attribution promotes maladaptive decision-making.

Authors:  Jonathan J Chow; Aaron P Smith; A George Wilson; Thomas R Zentall; Joshua S Beckmann
Journal:  Behav Brain Res       Date:  2016-12-16       Impact factor: 3.332

View more
  1 in total

1.  Good news is better than bad news, but bad news is not worse than no news.

Authors:  Brittany Sears; Roger M Dunn; Jeffrey M Pisklak; Marcia L Spetch; Margaret A McDevitt
Journal:  Learn Behav       Date:  2022-01-12       Impact factor: 1.986

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.