Species-specific response-topography of chickens' and pigeons' water-induced autoshaped responding

Four pigeons and eight chickens received autoshaping training where a keylight (conditioned stimulus) signaled response-independent deliveries of water (unconditioned stimulus). Pigeons drink while keeping their beaks submerged in water and moving their beaks to create suction ("mumbling"), whereas chickens drink by trapping a small amount of water in their mouths and then lifting their heads so the water trickles down. This experiment tested whether these and other species-specific differences in drinking and related behaviors of pigeons and chickens would be reflected in the form of conditioned (autoshaped) responding. Touchscreens and videotapes were used for data recording. Results showed that chickens moved their heads more than pigeons when drinking (unconditioned response). The birds also differed in conditioned responding in the presence of the keylight: Pigeons produced more keyswitch closures and mumbled at the keylight more than chickens whereas chickens scratched more than pigeons. In conclusion, with this unique comparative method that employed identical contingencies and comparable deprivation levels, species-specific differences in unconditioned responses and, more importantly, differences in their corresponding conditioned responses were observed.

Attention, the presolution period, and choice accuracy in pigeons

Six pigeons were trained first on a color then on a form discrimination; four other pigeons were trained first on form and then on color. One of two colors or one of two forms (sample stimuli) appeared in the center of a touch sensitive monitor for 5 pigeons and in the center and in 16 other locations for 5 other pigeons. A peck anywhere within the region in which the sample stimuli appeared produced two white disks (comparison stimuli), one on the left and one on the lower right corners of the screen. Correct left-right choices provided food. Although of no consequence, the location of pecks in presence of the sample was predictive of the pigeon's subsequent choice. Accuracy, choice of the correct comparison stimulus, was greater when the sample stimuli appeared in the center as well as 16 other locations than when it appeared only in the center. The presolution period, the period of chance accuracy prior to evidence of discrimination learning, was decreased on each task following training on the other task. This evidence of facilitation following an extra-dimensional shift was attributed to continued relevance of the conditions under which the first task was learned. The duration of the presolution period was inversely related to asymptotic accuracy-data accounted for by Heinemann's (1983) theory of information processing during the presolution period.

Ontogeny has a phylogeny: background to adjunctive behaviors in pigeons and budgerigars

Animals coping with operant conditioning tasks often show behaviors that are not recorded by keys, levers and similar response transducers. Nevertheless, these adjunctive behaviors should not be disposed of by classifying them as incidental. Often they are found to be at least partially influenced by the experimentally programmed contingencies, and under certain conditions they can in turn influence conditioned behaviors. Here we describe the occurrence and characteristics of two such behaviors, stimulus grasping in operantly key-pecking pigeons and intra-delay stereotypies in a delayed matching-to-sample task with budgerigars. It is argued that for a proper account of these behaviors it is necessary to refer to a behavioral systems approach that appeals to longer ranging ontogenetic and phylogenetic histories than is usually considered in the psychological literature. The gaping towards on-key stimuli by pigeons is attributed to the hypothesis that operantly conditioned key-pecks probably relate to a grasp-pecking response that is normally executed towards non-edible items covering food. The intra-delay behaviors shown by the budgerigars are assumed to have originated from stress-induced displacement responses that adventitiously came under the influence of differential reinforcement contingencies. Finally, we discuss what kinds of evidence are needed to put these hypothetical explanations on a more certain footing.