Abstract
Two experiments with pigeons explored conditioned keypeck responding to new visual targets after visual compound discrimination training. In the first experiment, pigeons were trained with an A+, AB−, ABC+, AD−, ADC+ task, in which stimulus A signalled food, stimulus compounds AB and AD signalled no food, and stimulus compounds ABC and ADC signalled food. According to both an elemental model (Rescorla & Wagner, 1972) and a configural model (Pearce, 1987) of Pavlovian conditioning, test compounds BC and DC should elicit less responding than should C alone. However, the birds responded more to BC and DC than to C. In the second experiment, another set of pigeons was trained with an A+, AB−, ABC+, AD−, ADE+ task, in which stimulus A signalled food, stimulus compounds AB and AD signalled no food, and stimulus compounds ABC and ADE signalled food. Contrary to the prediction of the Rescorla-Wagner model, keypeck responding was not less on BC and DE trials than on C and E trials in testing. However, B and D attenuated responding to E and C, respectively, when presented in compounds BE and DC. The Pearce model was able to accommodate these results.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
