Selective Attention and Stimulus–Reinforcer Interactions in the Pigeon

Abstract

The study supplies further evidence that non-associative effects and temporal–spatial similarities between certain combinations of cue and consequence cannot explain all instances of stimulus–reinforcer interactions. Pigeons were trained to press a treadle in the presence of a discriminative compound stimulus either to avoid shock or to obtain a food reinforcer. The compound stimulus was composed of diffuse tone and light cues which had identical temporal patterns of onset, duration and offset. With the avoidance schedule the auditory cue acquired more control than the visual cue; however, when food was the reinforcer, the visual cue exerted more control. This pattern of stimulus control on the appetitive schedule did not change if random shocks were also added, even though these shocks were equal in density to the food presentations and equal in magnitude to those used for the avoidance schedule. Other changes in the appetitive procedure, such as making the tone spatially contiguous with food and removing the light in the food hopper, also failed to alter the relative control by the different cues. Prior training with a food reinforcer did not produce any change in the relative control by the two cues when the birds were retrained on the shock-avoidance schedule. The results suggest that some frequently stated alternatives to selective associability are not adequate explanations of this instance of a stimulus-reinforcer interaction.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Annau

Kamin

L. J.

(1961). The conditioned emotional response as a function of intensity of the US. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology 54, 428–434.

Foree

D. D.

LoLordo

V. M.

(1973). Attention to the pigeon: The differential effects of food-getting vs. shock-avoidance procedures. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology 85, 551–558.

Lo Lordo

V. M.

(1979). Selective associations. Mechanisms of learning and motivation. Dickinson

Boakes

R. A.

Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates 67–98.

Mackintosh

N. J.

(1973). Stimulus selection: Learning to ignore stimuli that predict no change in reinforcement. Constraints on learning. Hinde

R. A.

Stevenson-Hinde

London: Academic Press 75–76.

Mackintosh

N. J.

(1975). A theory of attention: Variations in associability of stimuli with reinforcement. Physiological Review 82, 276–298.

Miller

Domjam

(1981). Specificity of cue to consequence in aversion learning in the rat: Control for US-induced differential orientations. Animal Learning and Behavior 9, 339–345.

Pavlov

I. P.

(1927). Conditioned reflexes Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Rescorla

R. A.

(1980). Pavlovian second-order conditioning: Studies in associative learning Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Rescorla

R. A.

Holland

P. C.

(1976). Some behavioural approaches to the study of learning. Neural mechanisms of learning and memory. Rosenzweig

M. R.

Bennett

E. L.

Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

10.

Schindler

C. W.

Weiss

S. J.

(1982). Influence of positive and negative reinforcement on selective attention in the rat. Learning and Motivation 13, 304–323.

11.

Shapiro

K. L.

Jacobs

W. J.

LoLordo

V. M.

(1980). Stimulus-reinforcer interactions in Pavlovian conditioning of pigeons: Implications for selective associations. Animal Learning and Behavior 8, 586–594.

12.

Testa

T. J.

(1974). Causal relationships and the acquisition of avoidance responding. Psychological Review 81, 491–505.