Matching and Oddity Learning in the Pigeon: Transfer Effects and the Absence of Relational Learning

Are There Differences in "Intelligence" Between Nonhuman Species? The Role of Contextual Variables

We review evidence for Macphail’s (1982, 1985, 1987)Null Hypothesis, that nonhumans animals do not differ either qualitatively or quantitatively in their cognitive capacities. Our review supports the Null Hypothesis in so much as there are no qualitative differences among nonhuman vertebrate animals, and any observed differences along the qualitative dimension can be attributed to failures to account for contextual variables. We argue species do differ quantitatively, however, and that the main difference in “intelligence” among animals lies in the degree to which one must account for contextual variables.

Effects of set size on identity and oddity abstract-concept learning in rats

Match (MTS) and non-match-to-sample (NMTS) procedures are used to assess concepts of identity and oddity across species and are measured by transfer performance to novel stimuli. The number of exemplars used in training (set size) has been shown to affect learning with evidence of larger set sizes promoting concept learning in several species. The present study explored the effects of set size and procedure on concept learning in rats using olfactory stimuli. Concept learning was assessed for 20 rats via transfer tests consisting of novel stimuli after rats were initially trained to either MTS or NMTS with two or ten stimuli as exemplars. No difference was found in acquisition or transfer between MTS and NMTS, but rats trained with ten stimuli performed better on novel transfer tests than rats trained with two. When set size was expanded for rats originally trained with two stimuli and rats were re-tested with ten novel stimuli, performance showed full transfer demonstrating that training with multiple exemplars facilitates concept learning.

Transfer of Relational Rules in Matching and Oddity Learning by Pigeons and Corvids

Three experiments compared the performance of pigeons and corvids when they were given the opportunity to transfer the relational rule underlying matching or oddity discriminations to new sets of stimuli. In the first, pigeons and jackdaws were initially trained either on a matching or on a non-relational conditional discrimination and then transferred to a new matching discrimination. In the second, pigeons and jays were trained on a series of three matching (or oddity) discriminations with three different pairs of colours and finally tested, either with the same or the reversed rule, on matching or oddity to line orientations. In the third, pigeons and rooks were trained to perform one response when two coloured panels were the same and a different response when the two colours were different and then transferred, either with the same or the reversed rule, to a new set of colour stimuli. All three experiments produced the same result: no evidence of transfer of the relational rule by pigeons, but substantial and significant transfer by corvids.

Concept Learning and Learning Strategies

Concept learning and learning strategies of pigeons were manipulated in a matching-to-sample task. Groups of 4 pigeons responded either 0, 1, 10, or 20 times to a sample stimulus, and then chose between a matching comparison stimulus and a nonmatching comparison stimulus. Tests with unfamiliar arrangements of the three training stimuli showed that learning was not by if-then rules. Tests with novel stimuli showed that as the number of sample responses increased, learning about the configural pattern of each display gave way to more learning about the sample-comparison relationship and more concept learning. Pigeons making the most sample responses showed complete concept learning.

Generalized rule application in bluestreak cleaner wrasse (Labroides dimidiatus): using predator species as social tools to reduce punishment

Generalized rule application promotes flexible behavior by allowing individuals to adjust quickly to environmental changes through generalization of previous learning. Here, we show that bluestreak 'cleaner' wrasse (Labroides dimidiatus) uses generalized rule application in their use of predators as social tools against punishing reef fish clients. Punishment occurs as cleaners do not only remove ectoparasites from clients, but prefer to feed on client mucus (constituting cheating). We tested for generalized rule application in a series of experiments, starting by training cleaners to approach one of two fish models in order to evade punishment (by chasing) from a 'cheated' client model. Cleaners learned this task only if the safe haven was a predator model. During consecutive exposure to pairs of novel species, including exotic models, cleaners demonstrated generalization of the 'predators-are-safe-havens' rule by rapidly satisfying learning criteria. However, cleaners were not able to generalize to a 'one-of-two-stimuli-presents-a-safe-haven' rule, as they failed to solve the task when confronted with either two harmless fish models or two predator models. Our results emphasize the importance of ecologically relevant experiments to uncover complex cognitive processes in non-human animals, like generalized rule learning in the context of social tool use in a fish.

Relational learning in honeybees (Apis mellifera): Oddity and nonoddity discrimination

Honeybee learning is surprisingly similar to vertebrate learning and one implication is that the basic associative learning principles are also similar. This research extends the work to more complex cognitive phenomena. Forager bees were trained individually to visit a laboratory window for sucrose. On each training trial for all experiments, bees found three stimuli, two identical and one different. In Experiments 1 and 2, stimuli were three-dimensional two-color patterns, and in Experiments 3 and 4, stimuli were two-color patterns displayed on a computer monitor. Training was trial-unique, that is, a different triad of stimuli was presented on each trial. In Experiments 1 and 3, choice of odd was rewarded and choice of nonodd was punished. In Experiments 2 and 4, choice of nonodd was rewarded and choice of odd was punished. On every trial, the initial choice was recorded and correction permitted. Honeybees learned to choose the odd stimulus in Experiments 1 and 3 and the nonodd stimuli in Experiments 2 and 4. The results provide compelling evidence of oddity and nonoddity learning, often interpreted as relational learning in vertebrates. Whether the mechanism of such learning in honeybees is similar to that of vertebrate species remains to be determined.

Abstract-concept learning of difference in pigeons

Many species have demonstrated the capacity to learn abstract concepts. Recent studies have shown that the quantity of stimuli used during training plays a critical role in how subjects learn abstract concepts. As the number of stimuli available in the training set increases, so too does performance on novel combinations. The role of set size has been explored with learning the concept of matching and same/different but not with learning the concept of difference. In the present study, pigeons were trained in a non-matching-to-sample task with an initial training set of three stimuli followed by transfer tests to novel stimuli. The training set was progressively doubled eight times with learning and transfer following each expansion. Transfer performance increased from chance level (50 %) at the smallest set size to a level equivalent to asymptotic training performance at the two largest training set sizes (384, 768). This progressive novel-stimulus transfer function of a non-matching (difference) rule is discussed in comparison with results from a similar experiment where pigeons were trained on a matching rule.

Reflexivity in pigeons

A recent theory of pigeons' equivalence-class formation (Urcuioli, 2008) predicts that reflexivity, an untrained ability to match a stimulus to itself, should be observed after training on two "mirror-image" symbolic successive matching tasks plus identity successive matching using some of the symbolic matching stimuli. One group of pigeons was trained in this fashion; a second group was trained similarly but with successive oddity (rather than identity). Subsequently, comparison-response rates on novel matching versus mismatching sequences with the remaining symbolic matching stimuli were measured on nonreinforced probe trials. Higher rates were observed on matching than on mismatching probes in the former group. The opposite effect--higher rates on mismatching than matching probes--was mostly absent in the latter group, despite being predicted by the theory. Nevertheless, the ostensible reflexivity effect observed in former group may be the first time this phenomenon has been demonstrated in any animal.

Learning Processes in Matching and Oddity: The Oddity Preference Effect and Sample Reinforcement

Eight pigeons learned either matching (to sample) or oddity (from sample) with or without reward for sample responding. The training stimuli were coarse-white, fine-black, or smooth-mauve gravels in pots with buried grain as the reinforcer. Oddity without sample reward was learned most rapidly, followed by matching with sample reward, oddity with sample reward, and matching without sample reward. Transfer was related to acquisition rate: The oddity group without sample reward showed full (equal to baseline) color and texture transfer; the matching group with sample reward showed partial texture transfer; other groups showed no transfer. Sample reward was shown to determine rate of acquisition of matching and oddity and the oddity preference effect. The results are discussed in terms of item-specific associations operating early in learning prior to any relational learning between sample and comparison stimuli.

On the limits of the matching concept in monkeys (Cebus apella)

Two cebus monkeys, with many years of experience matching a variety of static visual stimuli (forms and colors) within a standard matching-to-sample paradigm, were trained to press a left lever when a pair of displayed static stimuli were the same and to press a right lever when they were different. After learning the same/different task, the monkeys were tested for transfer to dynamic visual stimuli (flashing versus steady green disks), with which they had no previous experience. Both failed to transfer to the dynamic stimuli. A third monkey, also with massive past experience matching static visual stimuli, was tested for transfer to the dynamic stimuli within our standard matching paradigm, and it, too, failed. All 3 subjects were unable to reach a moderate acquisition criterion despite as many as 52 sessions of training with the dynamic stimuli. These results provide further evidence that, in monkeys, the matching (or identity) concept has a very limited reach; they consequently do not support the view held by some theorists that an abstract matching concept based on physical similarity is a general endowment of animals.

Orientation invariance of shape recognition in forebrain-lesioned pigeons

Pigeons were trained to perform a visual orientation invariance task consisting of shape matching-to-sample or oddity-from-sample discriminations where the comparison forms differed in orientation from the sample forms, and the odd comparison forms were always a mirror image of the sample. They then received lesions affecting the visual projection area within the anterior hyperstriatum or the dorsal neostriatum, a control area with no known visual function. Both groups of birds evinced minor transient postoperative deficits of similar magnitude during the shape recognition task under orientation invariance conditions when the habitual training forms were used. When novel forms were introduced, the performance of hyperstriatal pigeons was significantly worse than that of the neostriatal pigeons, but still well above chance. The introduction of a delay between the offset of the sample and the onset of the habitual comparison stimuli did not yield any differential effect. It is concluded that orientation invariance of pattern recognition performance of birds, in contrast to that in mammals, is probably a midbrain, optic tectum function.