Pigeons were exposed to stimuli differing in orientation. Some birds received both horizontal and vertical on every trial; others received two horizontals on some trials and two verticals on other trials. These stimuli were irrelevant, i.e., did not predict reliably the availability of reinforcement. When required to learn a discrimination between horizontal and vertical, the birds that had experienced the stimulus variation within each display learned more slowly. This was true whether the test problem was a simultaneous or a successive discrimination. It is argued that this result implies that animals will actively learn to ignore stimuli that are irrelevant.
GalbraithK. (1973). Fractional anticipatory goal responses as cues in discrimination learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology97, 177–81.
3.
MackintoshN. J. (1965). Incidental cue learning in rats. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology17, 292–300.
4.
MackintoshN. J. (1973). Stimulus selection: learning to ignore stimuli that predict no change in reinforcement. Constraints on LearningHindeR. A.Stevenson-HindeJ.London: Academic Press.
5.
MackintoshN. J. (1975). A theory of attention: variations in the associability of stimuli with reinforcement. Psychological Review82, 276–98.
6.
RescorlaR. A.WagnerA. R. (1972). A theory of Pavlovian conditioning: variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and nonreinforcement. Classical Conditioning II: Current Research and TheoryBlackA. H.ProkasyW. F.New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
7.
ThomasD. R.MillerJ. T.HansenG. (1972). Role of stimulus comparison in equivalence training. Journal of Experimental Psychology96, 297–300.
8.
TomieA.DavittG. A.ThomasD. R. (1973). Role of stimulus similarity in equivalence training. Journal of Experimental Psychology101, 146–50.
9.
WallerT. G. (1970). Effect of irrelevant cues on discrimination acquisition and transfer in rats. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology73, 477–80.
