Pigeons prefer to invest early for future reinforcers

Choosing a future from a murky past: A generalization-based model of behavior

Remembering the past appears critical in allowing organisms to detect order in an environment, and hence to behave in accordance with likely future events. Yet the shortcomings of remembering and perceiving typically mean that the remembered past differs from the actual past, and hence that behavior does not perfectly track the structure of the environment. Here, we outline how the process of generalization might be used to understand differences between what an organism does, and the structure of the past and potential structure of the environment. We explore how different sources of generalization - both from within the same stimulus situation, and from different stimulus situations - might be modeled quantitatively, and how predictions made by this modeling approach are supported by research. Finally, we discuss how generalization from multiple stimulus situations, longer-term experience, and from stimulus situations in the past that are not identical to the stimulus situation in the present, might contribute to our understanding of how an organism's experience translates into behavior.

Incrementing non-matching- but not matching-to-sample is rapidly learned in an automated version of the odor span task

The odor span task (OST) is frequently used to assess memory capacity in rodents. Odor stimuli are presented in a large arena and choices of session-novel odors produce food reward. The procedure can be described as an incrementing non-matching-to-sample contingency because on each trial one new stimulus is presented along with one or more previously presented (non-reinforced) comparison odors. An automated version of this task has recently been developed in which odors are presented with an olfactometer in an operant chamber using a successive conditional discrimination procedure. The present study compared the acquisition of matching- vs. non-matching-to-sample versions of the task with six rats tested under each procedure. All six rats trained on the non-matching variation showed rapid acquisition of the discrimination with high rates of responding to odor stimuli when they were session-novel and low rates of responding to subsequent presentations of those odors. However, only three of the six rats trained on the matching variation met acquisition criteria, and two of the three that did acquire the task required extensive training to do so. These results support findings from the OST that rats can differentiate between stimuli that are session-novel and those previously encountered, but also that a matching contingency is more difficult to learn than a non-matching arrangement. These findings parallel differences observed between acquisition of simple matching- and non-matching-to-sample tasks, but accounts such as novelty preference or the oddity preference effect may not be sufficient to explain the present results.