"Distractor" effects in delay discounting of probability by pigeons.

Impulsive behavior can be measured by performance on a successive delay-discounting task, in which a response to a stimulus provides a small reinforcer sooner (SS), but in the absence of a response, a larger reinforcer later (LL). Previous research suggests that the presence of a concurrent "distractor" stimulus, to which responding has no programed consequence, can result in increased LL reinforcers. In the present experiments, we used differences in the probability of reinforcement between SS and LL (rather than magnitude of reinforcement) and tested the hypothesis that the concurrent stimulus may become a Pavlovian conditioned stimulus. For the Red-Only group, a response to the SS stimulus resulted in a reinforcer with a low probability (SS), whereas the absence of a response resulted in a reinforcer with a high probability (LL). For the Red-Green group, (analogous to the more typical simultaneous choice between an SS and LL stimulus) the absence of a response to the SS stimulus replaced the SS stimulus with the LL stimulus and a response to the LL stimulus resulted in the reinforcer. Thus, for the Red-Green group, the concurrent stimulus should have been less effective because responding to the concurrent stimulus was not immediately followed by the reinforcer. In Experiment 1, the concurrent stimulus was a yellow key-light; in Experiment 2, it was a houselight. In both experiments, the concurrent stimulus was effective in increasing the number of LL reinforcers and the effect was larger for the Red-Only group than for the Red-Green group.

1-Back reinforcement symbolic-matching by humans: How do they learn it?

For humans, a distinction has been made between implicit and explicit learning. Implicit learning is thought to involve automatic processes of the kind involved in much Pavlovian conditioning, while explicit learning is thought to involve conscious hypothesis testing and rule formation, in which the subject's statement of the rule has been taken as evidence of explicit learning. Various methods have been used to determine if nonverbal animals are able to learn a task explicitly - among these is the 1-back reinforcement task in which feedback from performance on the current conditional discrimination trial is provided only after completion of the following trial. We propose that it is not whether an organism can learn the task, but whether they learn it rapidly, all-or-none, that provides a better distinction between the two kinds of learning. We had humans learn a symbolic matching, 1-back reinforcement task. Almost half of the subjects failed to learn the task, and of those who did, none described the 1-back rule. Thus, it is possible to learn this task without learning the 1-back rule. Furthermore, the backward learning functions for humans differ from those of pigeons. Human subjects who learned the task did so all-or-none, suggesting explicit learning. In earlier research with pigeons, they too showed significant learning of this task; however, backward learning functions suggested that they did so gradually over the course of several sessions of training and to a lower level of asymptotic accuracy than the humans, a result suggesting implicit learning was involved.

Pigeons learn two matching tasks, two nonmatching tasks, or one of each.

When pigeons learn matching-to-sample or nonmatching-to-sample there is good evidence that they can transfer that learning to novel stimuli. But early evidence suggests that in the rate of task acquisition, there is no benefit from a matching relation between the sample and the correct or incorrect comparison stimulus. In the present research we trained three groups of pigeons, each on two two-stimulus tasks simultaneously, matching-matching, nonmatching-nonmatching, or matching-nonmatching. If a common matching or nonmatching relationship benefits acquisition, the first two groups should acquire their tasks faster than the third group, for which the two tasks ought to be incompatible. The results indicated that all three groups acquired their tasks at about the same rate. A secondary goal of the experiment was to determine the basis of learning for the each of the three groups. During testing, for each task, there were test trials in which one of the stimuli from the other task replaced either the correct or the incorrect comparison stimulus. Surprisingly, neither comparison stimulus appeared to show complete control over comparison choice. Although replacing either comparison stimulus resulted in a decrement in task accuracy from about 90% to 70% correct, independent of which comparison stimulus was replaced, the pigeons chose correctly at well above chance accuracy. Suggestions to explain this unexpected outcome are discussed.

Pigeons' midsession reversal: Greater magnitude of reinforcement on the first half of the session leads to improved accuracy.

In the midsession reversal task, pigeons are trained on a simultaneous two-alternative discrimination in which S1 is correct for the first half of the session and S2 is correct for the second half of the session. Optimally, pigeons should choose S1 until it stops being correct and choose S2 afterward. Instead, pigeons anticipate S2 too early and continue choosing S1 even after the reversal. Research suggests that they attempt to time the reversal rather than use the feedback from the preceding response(s). Recently, there is evidence that performance is almost optimized by generating an asymmetry between S1 and S2. For example, pigeons' accuracy improves if correct S1 responses are reinforced 100% of the time, but correct S2 responses are reinforced only 20% of the time. Similarly, accuracy improves if S1 requires one peck but S2 requires 10 pecks. Accuracy does not improve, however, if the value of S1 is less than the value of S2. In the current experiment, we manipulated the magnitude of reinforcement. For the experimental group, correct responses to S1 were reinforced with five pellets of food and correct responses to S2 were reinforced with one pellet. For the control group, all correct responses were reinforced with three pellets. Consistent with the earlier findings, results indicated that there was a significant reduction in anticipatory errors in the experimental group compared with the control, and there was no significant increase in perseverative errors.

Bayesian Methods: A Means of Improving Statistical Power in Preclinical Neurotrauma?

The field of neurotrauma is grappling with the effects of the recently identified replication crisis. As such, care must be taken to identify and perform the most appropriate statistical analyses. This will prevent misuse of research resources and ensure that conclusions are reasonable and within the scope of the data. We anticipate that Bayesian statistical methods will see increasing use in the coming years. Bayesian methods integrate prior beliefs (or prior data) into a statistical model to merge historical information and current experimental data. These methods may improve the ability to detect differences between experimental groups (i.e., statistical power) when used appropriately. However, researchers need to be aware of the strengths and limitations of such approaches if they are to implement or evaluate these analyses. Ultimately, an approach using Bayesian methodologies may have substantial benefits to statistical power, but caution needs to be taken when identifying and defining prior beliefs.

What makes the ephemeral reward task so difficult?

The ephemeral reward task involves providing subjects with a choice between two distinctive stimuli, A and B, each containing an identical reward. If A is chosen, the reward associated with A is obtained and the trial is over. If B is chosen, the reward associated with B is obtained but A remains, and the reward associated with A can be obtained as well. Thus, the reward-maximizing solution is to choose B first. Although cleaner fish (wrasse) and parrots easily acquire the optimal response by choosing B, paradoxically, several nonhuman primate species, as well as rats and pigeons, do not. It appears that some species do not associate their choice and reward with the second reward. Surprisingly, research in an operant context with pigeons and rats suggests that inserting a delay between the choice and reward facilitates optimal choice. It is suggested that impulsivity may be, in part, responsible for the difficulty of the task. In an attempt to better understand this task, we trained human subjects on an operant version of this task, with and without a brief delay between choice and reward and found that many subjects failed to learn to choose optimally, independent of the delay. Furthermore, performance on this task was not correlated with a task thought to measure impulsivity, the Balloon Analog Risk Task or with the Abbreviated Impulsivity Survey. We concluded that, for humans, the task is confusing because there is no incorrect response, only good and better, and better is not easily discriminated. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

What enables "distraction" to reduce delay discounting for pigeons (Columba livia).

In a successive delay-discounting task, a small reward can be obtained immediately but a larger reward can be obtained if one waits. There is evidence that the larger reward can be obtained more easily if one is "distracted" from obtaining the small reward. It is proposed here that a distractor stimulus may function as a Pavlovian conditioned stimulus (sign tracking) because orienting to it may be directly associated with the larger reinforcer. In the present study with pigeons, we examined two successive procedures: (a) a peck to a red light resulted in one pellet of food, and waiting for the red light to turn off resulted in five pellets (Red-Only). (b) If the pigeon pecked a red light, it received one pellet of food, and if it waited for the red light to turn to green, a peck to the green light resulted in five pellets of food (Red-Green). For both groups, on some trials, a concurrent (distractor) stimulus appeared with the red light but responses to it had no programed consequence. Results indicated that the pigeons in both groups waited for the larger reward more often when the distractor was present than when it was absent and that pigeons in the Red-Only group waited longer than those in the Red-Green group. The results are consistent with the hypothesis that the concurrent stimulus served as a conditioned stimulus for the Red-Only group and as a higher order conditioned stimulus for the Red-Green group. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Matching is acquired faster than mismatching by pigeons when salient stimuli are presented manually.

Same/different learning by pigeons has been studied using several different procedures. One of these procedures is matching-to-sample or mismatching-from-sample in which responses to a sample stimulus result in the presentation of two comparison stimuli, one of which matches the sample, the other of which does not. In the matching task, choice of the matching stimulus is reinforced. In the mismatching task, choice of the stimulus that does not match the sample is reinforced. Most research that has compared acquisition of the two tasks has not reported a difference between them. Research with transfer of training, in which either the matching stimulus or the mismatching stimulus is replaced with a new stimulus, suggests that the matching stimulus is selected in the matching task, but the matching stimulus is rejected in the mismatching task. In the present experiment, pigeons were trained on either matching or mismatching with salient stimuli presented manually and the reinforcer was presented under a colored slide that covered it. In Phase 1 with a noncorrection procedure and a reinforcer for pecking the sample, pigeons did not acquire either task, however, in Phase 2 they learned both tasks readily without reinforcement for pecking the sample and with a correction procedure. Furthermore, the pigeons learned matching significantly faster than mismatching, suggesting that sameness may be a more natural stimulus relation than mismatching.

Statistical power and false positive rates for interdependent outcomes are strongly influenced by test type: Implications for behavioral neuroscience.

Statistical errors in preclinical science are a barrier to reproducibility and translation. For instance, linear models (e.g., ANOVA, linear regression) may be misapplied to data that violate assumptions. In behavioral neuroscience and psychopharmacology, linear models are frequently applied to interdependent or compositional data, which includes behavioral assessments where animals concurrently choose between chambers, objects, outcomes, or types of behavior (e.g., forced swim, novel object, place/social preference). The current study simulated behavioral data for a task with four interdependent choices (i.e., increased choice of a given outcome decreases others) using Monte Carlo methods. 16,000 datasets were simulated (1000 each of 4 effect sizes by 4 sample sizes) and statistical approaches evaluated for accuracy. Linear regression and linear mixed effects regression (LMER) with a single random intercept resulted in high false positives (>60%). Elevated false positives were attenuated in an LMER with random effects for all choice-levels and a binomial logistic mixed effects regression. However, these models were underpowered to reliably detect effects at common preclinical sample sizes. A Bayesian method using prior knowledge for control subjects increased power by up to 30%. These results were confirmed in a second simulation (8000 datasets). These data suggest that statistical analyses may often be misapplied in preclinical paradigms, with common linear methods increasing false positives, but potential alternatives lacking power. Ultimately, using informed priors may balance statistical requirements with ethical imperatives to minimize the number of animals used. These findings highlight the importance of considering statistical assumptions and limitations when designing research studies.

Flexible learning of matching and mismatching by pigeons.

When pigeons learn a conditional discrimination in which a sample stimulus indicates which of two comparison stimuli is correct Skinner (1950) proposed that they learn a chain involving the sample, the correct comparison stimulus, and the reinforcer. This implies that they do not learn to reject the incorrect comparison stimulus and the sameness relation between the sample and the correct or the incorrect comparison stimulus plays little role in learning. There is, however, considerable evidence that learning to match or mismatch the sample can transfer to novel stimuli. But there is little evidence that the sameness relation facilitates acquisition. In the present research, pigeons were trained on two 0-s delay conditional discriminations: two matching tasks, two mismatching tasks, or one of each. No differences were found in acquisition, suggesting that consistent matching or mismatching does not facilitate acquisition of conditional discriminations. In testing, when either the correct or the incorrect comparison stimulus in each discrimination was replaced with one of the stimuli from the other task, results suggested that when learning both tasks, the pigeons in all three groups had learned both to select the correct stimulus and to reject the incorrect stimulus. It appears that the pigeons may have had learned the tasks based on sample/comparison-stimulus configurations with the sample serving as an occasion setter.

1-Back reinforcement matching and mismatching by pigeons: Implicit or explicit learning?

In human learning a distinction has been made between implicit and explicit learning. Implicit learning is thought involve automatic processes of the kind involved in Pavlovian conditioning, while explicit learning is thought to involve conscious hypothesis testing and rule formation, in which the ability to report the rule used to learn the task is taken as evidence. Because non-verbal animals cannot provide such evidence, several indirect methods have been proposed. One of these methods is faster learning by humans of certain explicitly learned tasks than implicitly learned tasks, but pigeons do not show a similar difference. Another method involves the 1-back-reinforcement conditional discrimination (if A choose X, if B choose Y) in which feedback following the conditional response is delayed until the next trial. It has been argued that implicit learning cannot occur over the delay between the conditional response and the reinforcer on the next trial, yet, it has been found that monkeys can learn this 1-back reinforcement task. We have argued that such learning can occur implicitly. We have found that pigeons, a species not thought to learn explicitly, can show significant learning of both 1-back reinforcement matching and 1-back reinforcement mismatching, two versions of the 1-back-reinforcement conditional discrimination. We propose that the evidence for explicit learning by non-verbal animals suffers from alternative simpler accounts because the rationale for explicit learning is based on assumptions that likely are not correct.

Pigeon's choice depends primarily on the value of the signal for the outcome rather than its frequency or contrast.

Pigeons typically prefer a 20% probability of signaled reinforcement over a 50% probability of unsignaled reinforcement. There is even evidence that they prefer 50% signaled reinforcement over 100% reinforcement. It has been suggested that this effect results from contrast between the expected probability of reinforcement (e.g., 50%) at the time of choice and the value of the positive signal for reinforcement (100%). Alternatively, it is primarily the value of the positive signal for reinforcement itself that determines suboptimal choice. To attempt to distinguish between these two hypotheses, in Experiment 1, we gave pigeons a choice between (a) a 50% reinforcement alternative that was followed by one of two signals for 100% reinforcement, each 25% of the time, or a signal for the absence of reinforcement 50% of the time (50% contrast) and (b) a 25% reinforcement alternative that was followed by a signal for 100% reinforcement 25% of the time, or a signal for the absence of reinforcement 75% of the time (75% contrast). In spite of the difference in contrast, the pigeons were indifferent between the two alternatives. In Experiment 2, when contrast was held constant at 50% and the value of the positive signals for reinforcement were different, we found support for choice based on the value of the positive signal for reinforcement. Thus, it appears that pigeons' choice depends primarily on the value of the outcome rather than its frequency or contrast. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Flexible conditional discrimination learning: Pigeons can learn to select the correct comparison stimulus, reject the incorrect comparison, or both.

In a simultaneous discrimination, pigeons are presumed to learn to about the correct stimulus, but they may also learn to avoid the incorrect stimulus. Similarly, in a conditional discrimination, they are presumed to learn about the relation between the sample stimulus and the correct comparison stimulus but not about the incorrect comparison stimulus. In the present research, we encouraged pigeons to learn about the incorrect comparison stimulus by increasing, over trials, the number of correct comparison stimuli with one sample, to compare with increasing the number of incorrect comparison stimuli over trials with the other sample. In Experiment 1, using colors and shapes, we found no difference in acquisition between the 2 sample types. However, when we replaced either the correct or incorrect comparison from training with a novel stimulus, the pigeons showed that they had learned to avoid the incorrect comparison when there were multiple correct comparisons and to select the single correct comparison when there were multiple incorrect comparisons. In Experiment 2, using national flags as stimuli, when tested with a novel flag stimulus, once again, the pigeons learned about the single correct comparison but not about the multiple incorrect comparisons. However, with the other sample, they appeared to learn about both the multiple correct comparisons and about the single incorrect comparison. This research indicates that pigeons can show considerable flexibility in what they learn in a conditional discrimination. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).