Superstitious learning of abstract order from random reinforcement

The neuropharmacological profile of interval responding during operant tasks

Responses occurring during intervals of operant tasks have been subdivided as interim, facultative, and terminal, depending on the time between response onset and reward. Although interval responses, also known as adjunctive responses, have been described in pigeons, rats, mice, monkeys, and humans, most experiments have been conducted in rats. We review the neurochemical basis of interval responses and examine the hypothesis that these responses modulate operant performance. Preliminary experiments indicate the involvement of biogenic amines, acetylcholine, and GABA during interval responding associated with operant tasks. In particular, catecholaminergic deafferentation of the basal ganglia modulated interval responses as did the peripheral injection of catecholamine reuptake blockers. Under the influence of amphetamine, interval responding may either increase or decrease, so that a wide range of responses must be selected to gauge drug effects. In non-drugged pigeons and rats, the expression of interval responses facilitates operant training.

Looking away to see: The acquisition of a search habit away from the saccade direction

Growing evidence has shown that attention can be habit-like, unconsciously and persistently directed toward locations that have frequently contained search targets in the past. The attentional preference typically arises when the eye gaze aligns with the attended location. Here we tested whether this spatial alignment is necessary for the acquisition of a search habit. To divert eye movements away from an attended location, we used gaze-contingent eye tracking, restricting the visible portion of the screen to an area opposite to the current gaze. Participants searched for a T target amidst a circular array of L distractors. Unbeknownst to them, the target appeared more frequently in one screen quadrant. Despite fixating on a location diametrically opposite to the visible, attended region, participants acquired probability cuing, producing quicker responses when the target appeared in the high-probability quadrant. They also showed a speed advantage in the diagonal quadrant. The attentional preference for the high-probability quadrant persisted during a testing phase in which the target's location was unbiased, but only when participants continued to search with the restricted view. These results indicate that a search habit can be acquired even when participants are required to look away from the high-probability locations. The finding suggests that the learned search habit is not solely a result of oculomotor learning.

Is superstitious responding a matter of detectability? A replication of Killeen (1978)

Organisms may sometimes behave as if a contingency exists between behavior and consequences, even if this is not actually the case. Killeen (1978) suggested that such superstition occurs because of factors that bias subjects to behave "superstitiously" rather than because of failures of discrimination. We systematically replicated Killeen's experiment and compared contingency discrimination between different consequences. Six pigeons responded in a matching-to-sample procedure in which a response-independent or response-dependent stimulus change, food delivery, or blackout occurred. The pigeons reported whether the consequence was response dependent or response independent by choosing between two side keys. Discrimination was strongest after stimulus changes, weaker after blackouts, and weakest after food deliveries. These differences persisted even after additional training, suggesting asymmetries that may reflect differences in the disruptive effects of different consequences on remembering and/or behavioral mnemonics. Importantly, the pigeons were not biased to report response-dependent consequences unless that response was consistent with locational biases; that is, they behaved "superstitiously" when there was a reason to be biased to do so. These findings corroborate Killeen's and demonstrate that behavior may deviate from contingencies not necessarily because subjects cannot discriminate those contingencies but because they are biased to behave otherwise.

Individual differences could explain the failure in transitive inference formation in pigeons using probabilistic reinforcement

In propositional logic, it is stated that "for if A is predicated for every B, and B for every C, A must necessarily be predicated of every C". Following a similar logical process, it can be said that If A > B and B > C, then A > C, this is called transitive inference (TI). Piaget developed a verbal task to evaluate TI in children. Subsequent studies adapted this task for animals using a conditioned discrimination between five-terms sequence of stimuli A + B-, B + C-, C + D-, and D + E-. If subjects prefer B over D during test, it is assumed that TI has occurred. In this experiment, we analyzed the effects of task complexity on TI by using a five-terms sequence of stimuli associated with probabilistic outcomes during training, in pigeons. Thus, both stimuli are reinforced in each pair but with different probability, 0.8 for + stimulus and 0.2 for the-stimulus. We found that performance during C + D- pair is impaired and preference in the test pair BD is affected. However, this impairment is dependent on individual differences in performance in C + D- pair. We compare our findings with previous research and conclude that Pavlovian mechanisms, as well as ordering of stimuli, can account for our findings.

Probabilistic reinforcement precludes transitive inference: A preliminary study

In the basic verbal task from Piaget, when a relation of the form if A > B and B > C is given, a logical inference A > C is expected. This process is called transitive inference (TI). The adapted version for animals involves the presentation of a simultaneous discrimination between stimuli pairs. In this way, when A+B-, B+C-, C+D-, D+E- is trained, a B>D preference is expected, assuming that if A>B>C>D>E, then B>D. This effect has been widely reported using several procedures and different species. In the current experiment TI was evaluated employing probabilistic reinforcement. Thus, for the positive stimuli a .7 probability was administered and for the negative stimuli a .3 probability was administered. Under this arrangement the relation A>B>C>D>E is still allowed, but TI becomes more difficult. Five pigeons (Columba Livia) were exposed to the mentioned arrangement. Only one pigeon reached the criterion in C+D- discrimination, whereas the remaining did not. Only the one who successfully solved C+D- was capable of learning TI, whereas the others were not. Additionally, it was found that correct response ratios did not predict BD performance. Consequently, probabilistic reinforcement disrupted TI, but some positional ordering was retained in the test. The results suggest that TI might be affected by associative strength but also by the positional ordering of the stimuli. The discussion addresses the two main accounts of TI: the associative account and the ordinal representation account.