PMCC PMCC

Search tips
Search criteria

Advanced
Results 1-5 (5)
 

Clipboard (0)
None

Select a Filter Below

Journals
Authors
Year of Publication
1.  Abstract-Concept Learning Carryover Effects from the Initial Training Set 
Three groups of pigeons were trained in a same/different task with 32, 64, or 1024 color-picture stimuli. They were tested with novel transfer pictures. The training-testing cycle was repeated with training-set doublings. Group 32 learned the same/different task as rapidly as a previous 8-item group and transferred better than the 8-item group at the 32-item training set. The 64- and 1024-item groups learned the task only somewhat slower than other groups, but their transfer was better and equivalent to baseline performances. These results show that pigeons trained with small sets (e.g., 8 items) have carryover effects that hamper transfer when the training set is expanded. Without carryover effects (i.e., initial transfer from groups 32 & 64), pigeons show the same degree of transfer as rhesus and capuchin monkeys at these same set sizes. This finding has implications for the general ability of abstract-concept learning across species with different neural architectures.
doi:10.1037/a0013126
PMCID: PMC4259154  PMID: 19236147
same-different; abstract-concept learning; item-specific learning; relational learning; training set size; pigeons
2.  Learning Strategies in Matching to Sample: If-then and Configural Learning by Pigeons 
Behavioural processes  2007;77(2):223-230.
Pigeons learned a matching-to-sample task with a split training-set design in which half of the stimulus displays were untrained and tested following acquisition. Transfer to the untrained displays along with no novel-stimulus transfer indicated that these pigeons learned the task (partially) via if-then rules. Comparisons to other performance measures indicated that they also partially learned the task via configural learning (learning the gestalt of the whole stimulus display). Differences in the FR-sample requirement (1 vs. 20) had no systematic effect on the type of learning or level of learning obtained. Differences from a previous study (Wright, 1997) are discussed, including the effect of displaying the stimuli vertically (traditional display orientation) or horizontally from the floor.
doi:10.1016/j.beproc.2007.10.011
PMCID: PMC2290969  PMID: 18079071
3.  Of global space or perceived place? Comment on Kelly et al. 
Biology Letters  2011;7(5):647-648.
doi:10.1098/rsbl.2011.0216
PMCID: PMC3169059  PMID: 21673051
4.  On Discriminating between Geometric Strategies of Surface-Based Orientation 
Recently, a debate has manifested in the spatial learning literature regarding the shape parameters by which mobile organisms orient with respect to the environment. On one hand are principal-axis-based strategies which suggest that organisms extract the major and minor principal axes of space which pass through the centroid and approximate length and width of the entire space, respectively. On the other hand are medial-axis-based strategies which suggest that organisms extract a trunk-and-branch system similar to the skeleton of a shape. With competing explanations comes the necessity to devise experiments capable of producing divergent predictions. Here, we suggest that a recent experiment (i.e., Sturz and Bodily, 2011a) may be able to shed empirical light on this debate. Specifically, we suggest that a reevaluation of the design reveals that the enclosures used for training and testing appear to produce divergent predictions between these strategies. We suggest that the obtained data appear inconsistent with a medial-axis-based strategy and that the study may provide an example of the types of designs capable of discriminating between these geometric strategies of surface-based orientation. Such an approach appears critical to fundamental issues regarding the nature of space and spatial perception.
doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00112
PMCID: PMC3336183  PMID: 22539928
orientation; geometric strategies; medial axis; principal axis
5.  Issues in the Comparative Cognition of Abstract-Concept Learning 
Abstract-concept learning, including same/different and matching-to-sample concept learning, provides the basis for many other forms of “higher” cognition. The issue of which species can learn abstract concepts and the extent to which abstract-concept learning is expressed across species is discussed. Definitive answers to this issue are argued to depend on the subjects’ learning strategy (e.g., a relational-learning strategy) and the particular procedures used to test for abstract-concept learning. Some critical procedures that we have identified are: How to present the items to-be-compared (e.g., in pairs), a high criterion for claiming abstract-concept learning (e.g., transfer performance equivalent to baseline performance), and systematic manipulation of the training set (e.g., increases in the number of rule exemplars when transfer is less than baseline performance). The research covered in this article on the recent advancements in abstract-concept learning show this basic ability in higher-order cognitive processing is common to many animal species and that “uniqueness” may be limited more to how quickly new abstract concepts are learned rather than to the ability itself.
doi:10.3819/ccbr.2008.20005
PMCID: PMC2836729  PMID: 20228966

Results 1-5 (5)