Suboptimal choice by pigeons is eliminated when key-pecking behavior is replaced by treadle-pressing

2020 ◽  
Vol 178 ◽  
pp. 104157
Author(s):  
Rodrigo González-Torres ◽  
Julio Flores ◽  
Vladimir Orduña
Keyword(s):  
Suboptimal Choice ◽  
Key Pecking

Contrast between what is expected and what occurs increases pigeon’s suboptimal choice

2018 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 81-87 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas R. Zentall ◽  
Danielle M. Andrews ◽  
Jacob P. Case
Keyword(s):  
Suboptimal Choice

Suboptimal Choice by Pigeons: Evidence that the Value of the Conditioned Reinforcer Rather than its Frequency Determines Choice

2015 ◽  
Vol 65 (2) ◽  
pp. 223-229 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas R. Zentall ◽  
Jennifer R. Laude ◽  
Jessica P. Stagner ◽  
Aaron P. Smith
Keyword(s):  
Conditioned Reinforcer ◽  
Suboptimal Choice

scholarly journals On the role of responses in Pavlovian acquisition

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stefano Ghirlanda ◽  
Magnus Enquist
Keyword(s):  
Unconditioned Stimulus ◽  
Pavlovian Conditioning ◽  
Conditioned Response ◽  
Quantitative Methods ◽  
Eyeblink Conditioning ◽  
Key Pecking ◽  
Lever Pressing

A defining feature of Pavlovian conditioning is that the unconditioned stimulus (US) is delivered whether or not the animal performs a conditioned response (CR). This has lead to the question: Does CR performance play any role in learning? Between the 1930's and 1970's, a consensus emerged that CR acquisition is driven by CS-US experiences, and that CRs play a minimal role, if any. Here we revisit the question and present two new quantitative methods to evaluate whether CRs influence the course of learning. Our results suggest that CRs play an important role in Pavlovian acquisition, in such paradigms as rabbit eyeblink conditioning, pigeon autoshaped key pecking, and rat autoshaped lever pressing and magazine entry.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document