Attention is directed to the isolation of the dimensions of SDR methodology which make it sensitive to inter-species performance differences that have systematic taxonomical significance. Two dimensions in particular are indicated, inconstancy of reinforcement and the maximum opportunity for the generation of negative transfer. To determine if variation in magnitude of negative transfer is diagnostic of phyletic level, indices were studied across different phyletic levels of birds. More “primitive” birds developed greater magnitudes of negative transfer than more “advanced” birds. The relevance of these data to the retention decrement and the differential extinction hypotheses is examined.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BittermanM. E.The evolution of intelligence. Scientific American, 1965, 212, 92–100.
2.
BittermanM. E.A reply to Wiener and Huppert. Science, 1968, 160, 100.
3.
GossetteR. L.An examination of the retention decrement explanation of comparative successive discrimination reversal learning by birds and mammals. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1968, 27, 1147–1152.
4.
GossetteR. L.The analysis of reversal and non-reversal training: a further examination of the retention decrement hypothesis. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1969, 29, 171–178. (a)
5.
GossetteR. L.Magnitude of negative transfer of Myna birds on a spatial SDR task as a function of stringency on reversal criterion. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1969, 29, 621–622. (b)
6.
GossetteR. L.A note on the calibration of inter-species SDR performance differences: qualitative vs quantitative scaling. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1970, in press.
7.
GossetteR. L.GossetteM. F., & RiddellW.Comparisons of spatial successive discrimination reversal performances among closely and remotely related avian species. Animal Behavior, 1966, 14, 560–564.
8.
GossetteR. L., & HoodP.Inter-species comparisons of variation in magnitude of inhibitory control in reversal learning. Psychonomic Science, 1968, 26, 66.
9.
GossetteR. L., & HoodP.The effect of variation in motivation level upon inter-species (SDR) performance differences among closely related avian species. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1969, 28, 543–546.
10.
GossetteR. L., & InmanN.Comparison of spatial successive discrimination reversal performances of two groups of New World monkeys. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1966, 23, 169–170.
11.
LongoN.Probability learning and habit-reversal in the cockroach. American Journal of Psychology, 1964, 77, 29–41.
12.
MackintoshJ.An investigation of reversal learning in Octopus, Vulgaris lamarck. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1962, 14, 15–22.
13.
MackintoshJ.Comparative studies of reversal and probability learning: rats, birds and fish. In SutherlandN. S. & GilbertR. (Eds.), Animal discrimination learning. London: Academic Press, 1969. Pp. 137–163.
14.
SquierL.Reversal learning improvement in the fish Astronotus ocellatus (Oscar). Psychonomic Science, 1969, 14, 143–144.
15.
WarrenJ. M.Reversal learning by Paradise fish (Macropdus opercularis). Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1960, 53, 376–378.
16.
WarrenJ. M.Comparative psychology of learning. Annual Review of Psychology, 1965, 161, 95–118.
