Comparative performance of orangutans (Pongo spp.), gorillas (Gorilla gorilla gorilla), and drills (Mandrillus leucophaeus), in an ephemeral foraging task

A goal of the comparative approach is to test a variety of species on the same task. Here, we examined whether the factors that helped capuchin monkeys improve their performance in a dichotomous choice task would generalize to three other primate species: orangutans, gorillas, and drill monkeys. In this task, subjects have access to two options, each resulting in an identical food, but one (the ephemeral option) is only available if it is chosen first, whereas the other one (the permanent option) is always available. Therefore, the food-maximizing solution is to choose the ephemeral option first, followed by the permanent option for an additional reward. On the original version (plate task), the options were discriminated by the color and pattern of the plates holding the food, while on two subsequent versions we used altered cues that we predicted would improve performance: (1) the color of the foods themselves (color task), which we hypothesized was relevant to primates, who choose foods rather than substrates on which foods are found when foraging, and (2) patterned cups covering the foods (cup task), which we hypothesized would help primates avoid the prepotent response associated with visible food. Like capuchins, all three species initially failed to solve the plate task. However, while orangutans improved their performance from the plate to the color task, they did not for the cup task, and only a few gorillas and no drills succeeded in either task. Unfortunately, our ability to interpret these data was obscured by differences in the subjects' level of experience with cognitive testing and practical constraints that precluded the use of completely identical procedures across species. Nonetheless, we consider what these results can tell us, and discuss the value of conducting studies across multiple sites despite unavoidable differences.

Step changes in the intertrial interval in the midsession reversal task: Predicting pigeons' performance with the learning-to-time model

Our goal was to assess the role of timing in pigeons' performance in the midsession reversal task. In discrete-trial sessions, pigeons learned to discriminate between 2 stimuli, S1 and S2. Choices of S1 were reinforced only in the first half of the session and choices of S2 were reinforced only in the second half. Typically, pigeons choose S2 before the contingency reverses (anticipatory errors) and S1 after (perseverative errors), suggesting that they time the interval from the beginning of the session to the contingency reversal. To test this hypothesis, we exposed pigeons to a midsession reversal task and, depending on the group, either increased or decreased the ITI duration. We then contrasted the pigeons' performance with the predictions of the Learning-to-Time (LeT) model: In both conditions, preference was expected to reverse at the same time as in the previous sessions. When the ITI was doubled, pigeons' preference reversal occurred at half the trial number but at the same time as in the previous sessions. When the ITI was halved, pigeons' preference reversal occurred at a later trial but at an earlier time than in the previous sessions. Hence, pigeons' performance was only partially consistent with the predictions of LeT, suggesting that besides timing, other sources of control, such as the outcome of previous trials, seem to influence choice.

The paradoxical performance by different species on the ephemeral reward task

The ephemeral reward task consists of giving an animal a choice between two distinctive stimuli, A and B (e.g., black and white), on each of which is placed a bit of food. If the animal chooses the food on A, it gets that reinforcer, but the other stimulus, B, is removed, and the trial is over. If it chooses the food on B, however, it gets that food and the stimulus A remains, so it can have that food as well. Thus, choice of stimulus B gives the animal two reinforcers rather than one. Wrasse (cleaner fish) easily learn to choose optimally, whereas surprisingly, most non-human primates do not. Parrots, however, appear to learn this task as easily as the fish. To test the hypothesis that animals that choose with their mouth can learn it, we tested pigeons and found that they show no evidence of optimal learning with this task (with either the manual presentation of the stimuli or the operant presentation of the stimuli). Similarly, rats show no evidence of optimal learning. However, if a 20-s delay (fixed-interval schedule) is inserted between stimulus choice and reinforcement, both pigeons and rats learn to perform optimally. The ephemeral reward task appears to promote impulsive choice in several species, but with this task (and others), inserting a delay between choice and reinforcement promotes more careful choice, leading to optimal performance.

The Midsession Reversal Task with Pigeons Does a Brief Delay Between Choice and Reinforcement Facilitate Reversal Learning?

In a midsession reversal task, the session begins with a simple simultaneous discrimination in which one stimulus (S1) is correct and the other stimulus (S2) is incorrect (S1+/S2-). At the midpoint of the session, the discrimination reverses and S2 becomes the correct choice (S2+/S1-). When choosing optimally, a pigeon should choose S1 until the first trial in which its choice is not reinforced and then it should shift to S2 (win-stay/lose-shift). With this task, pigeons have been shown to respond suboptimally by anticipating the reversal (making anticipatory errors) and continuing to choose S1 after the reversal (making perseverative errors). This suboptimal behavior may result from a pigeon's relative impulsivity due to the immediacy of reinforcement following choice. In other choice tasks, there is evidence that the introduction of a short delay between choice and reinforcement may decrease pigeons' impulsivity. In the present experiment, a delay was introduced between stimulus selection and reinforcement to assess whether it results in a decrease in anticipatory and perseverative errors. Pigeons that had a delay between choice and reinforcement were a bit slower in acquiring the midsession reversal task compared to those without a delay, but showed no decrease in either anticipatory or perseverative errors. It is likely that the pigeons' natural tendency to use time from the start of the session to the reversal as a cue to reverse prevented the delay from increasing accuracy on this task.

Suboptimal choice and initial-link requirement

Pigeons (n = 14) were trained in a concurrent-chains suboptimal choice procedure that tested the effect of an increased ratio requirement in the initial links. Fixed-ratio 1 and 25 conditions were manipulated within subjects in a counterbalanced order. In all conditions, distinct terminal-link stimuli on a suboptimal alternative signaled either primary reinforcement (20% of the time) or extinction (80% of the time). On an optimal alternative, two distinct terminal-link stimuli each signaled a 50% chance of primary reinforcement. Preference for the suboptimal alternative was significantly attenuated, and in some birds completely reversed, by the larger response requirement irrespective of condition order. This larger response requirement also generated a notable increase in between-subject variability. A measure of cumulative choice responding is introduced to mitigate the problems associated with traditional session averages. Ordinal predictions of some current theories of suboptimal choice are also considered in light of the results.