Simultaneous discrimination reversal learning in pigeons and humans: anticipatory and perseverative errors

Giving time a chance in the midsession reversal task

The midsession reversal task involves a simultaneous discrimination between stimuli S1 and S2. Choice of S1 but not S2 is reinforced during the first 40 trials, and choice of S2 but not S1 is reinforced during the last 40 trials. Trials are separated by a constant intertrial interval (ITI). Pigeons learn the task seemingly by timing the moment of the reversal trial. Hence, most of their errors occur around trial 40 (S2 choices before trial 41 and S1 choices after trial 40). It has been found that when the ITI is doubled on a test session, the reversal trial is halved, a result consistent with timing. However, inconsistent with timing, halving the ITI on a test session did not double the reversal trial. The asymmetry of ITI effects could be due to the intrusion of novel cues during testing, cues that preempt the timing cue. To test this hypothesis, we ran two types of tests after the regular training in the midsession reversal task, one with S1 and S2 choices always reinforced, and another with S1 always reinforced but S2 reinforced only after 20 trials when the ITI doubled or 40 trials when the ITI halved. For most pigeons, performance was consistent with timing both when the ITI doubled and when it was halved, but some pigeons appeared to follow strategies based on counting or on reinforcement contingencies.

Modeling within-session dynamics of categorical and item-memory mechanisms in pigeons

Past studies have shown that pigeons can learn complex categories and can also remember large numbers of individual objects. In recent work, Cook et al. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 28, 548-555, (2021) provided evidence that pigeons may use a dynamic combination of both category-based information and item-specific memorization to solve a categorical variation of the mid-session reversal (MSR) task, which is an influential task for exploring the nature of temporally organized behaviors in animals. To provide greater insight into these pigeons' behaviors, in this article we developed and investigated different computational models and their variations to account for these data. Of these, two models emerged as good candidates. One was a multinomial-processing-tree categorization/memory model, formalizing the two-process mechanism initially proposed by Cook et al. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 28, 548-555, (2021). The second was a new object/time-coding model, which posits the storage of object-specific memories with an additional within-session time code and assumes that a basic stimulus generalization process underlies the pigeons' choice behavior. Both provided high-quality fits to the published sets of training and transfer data collected in the categorical MSR task. These computational efforts give deeper insights into the theoretical mechanisms underlying the temporal and sequential structure of behavior in animals and stimulate future empirical research further revealing the organization of the pigeons' cognitive processes.

Midsession reversal task with starlings: A quantitative test of the timing hypothesis

In the Mid-Session Reversal task (MSR), an animal chooses between two options, S1 and S2. Rewards follow S1 but not S2 from trials 1-40, and S2 but not S1 from trials 41-80. With pigeons, the psychometric function relating S1 choice proportion to trial number starts close to 1 and ends close to 0, with indifference (PSE) close to trial 40. Surprisingly, pigeons make anticipatory errors, choosing S2 before trial 41, and perseverative errors, choosing S1 after trial 40. These errors suggest that they use time into the session as the preference reversal cue. We tested this timing hypothesis with 10 Spotless starlings. After learning the MSR task with a T-s Inter-Trial Interval (ITI), they were exposed to either 2 T or T/2 ITIs during testing. Doubling the ITI should shift the psychometric function to the left and halve its PSE, whereas halving the ITI should shift the function to the right and double its PSE. When the starlings received one pellet per reward, the ITI manipulation was effective: The psychometric functions shifted in the direction and by the amount predicted by the timing hypothesis. However, non-temporal cues also influenced choice.

Assessing cognitive flexibility in humans and rhesus macaques with visual motion and neutral distractors

Introduction

Cognitive flexibility is the ability of an individual to make behavioral adjustments in response to internal and/or external changes. While it has been reported in a wide variety of species, established paradigms to assess cognitive flexibility vary between humans and non-human animals, making systematic comparisons difficult to interpret.

Methods

We developed a computer-based paradigm to assess cognitive flexibility in humans and non-human primates. Our paradigm (1) uses a classical reversal learning structure in combination with a set-shifting approach (4 stimuli and 3 rules) to assess flexibility at various levels; (2) it employs the use of motion as one of three possible contextual rules; (3) it comprises elements that allow a foraging-like and random interaction, i.e., instances where the animals operate the task without following a strategy, to potentially minimize frustration in favor of a more positive engagement.

Results and Discussion

We show that motion can be used as a feature dimension (in addition to commonly used shape and color) to assess cognitive flexibility. Due to the way motion is processed in the primate brain, we argue that this dimension is an ideal candidate in situations where a non-binary rule set is needed and where participants might not be able to fully grasp other visual information of the stimulus (e.g., quantity in Wisconsin Card Sorting Test). All participants in our experiment flexibly shifted to and from motion-based rules as well as color- and shape-based rules, but did so with different proficiencies. Overall, we believe that with such approach it is possible to better characterize the evolution of cognitive flexibility in primates, as well as to develop more efficient tools to diagnose and treat various executive function deficits.

Assessing human performance during contingency changes and extinction tests in reversal-learning tasks

Serial reversal-learning procedures are simple preparations that allow for a better understanding of how animals learn about environmental changes, including flexibly shifting responding to adapt to changing reinforcement contingencies. The present study examined serial reversal learning with humans by arranging both midsession and variable contingency reversals across two experiments. We also examined the effects of extinction by adding nonreinforced trials at the end of later sessions and provided the first evaluation of effects of win-stay/lose-shift versus counting strategies on accuracy and response latency of humans' reversal-learning performance. In each experiment, responding tracked contingency reversals, primarily with participants using either win-stay/lose-shift or counting strategies. Introducing variable reversal points in the second experiment resulted in near-exclusive win-stay/lose-shift responding among participants and eliminated counting of trials. Each experiment also revealed an immediate shift from S2 to S1 after experiencing extinction during the initial test trial, indicating resurgence of the initial response through a win-stay/lose-shift response pattern. Therefore, the present study replicates and extends prior findings of a win-stay/lose shift response pattern in situations of greater uncertainty. These findings suggest that differences in environmental certainty induce qualitatively different decision-making strategies.

Kea (Nestor notabilis) show flexibility and individuality in within-session reversal learning tasks

The midsession reversal paradigm confronts an animal with a two-choice discrimination task where the reward contingencies are reversed at the midpoint of the session. Species react to the reversal with either win-stay/lose-shift, using local information of reinforcement, or reversal estimation, using global information, e.g. time, to estimate the point of reversal. Besides pigeons, only mammalian species were tested in this paradigm so far and analyses were conducted on pooled data, not considering possible individually different responses. We tested twelve kea parrots with a 40-trial midsession reversal test and additional shifted reversal tests with a variable point of reversal. Birds were tested in two groups on a touchscreen, with the discrimination task having either only visual or additional spatial information. We used Generalized Linear Mixed Models to control for individual differences when analysing the data. Our results demonstrate that kea can use win-stay/lose-shift independently of local information. The predictors group, session, and trial number as well as their interactions had a significant influence on the response. Furthermore, we discovered notable individual differences not only between birds but also between sessions of individual birds, including the ability to quite accurately estimate the reversal position in alternation to win-stay/lose-shift. Our findings of the kea’s quick and flexible responses contribute to the knowledge of diversity in avian cognitive abilities and emphasize the need to consider individuality as well as the limitation of pooling the data when analysing midsession reversal data.

Sex differences in learning flexibility in an avian brood parasite, the shiny cowbird

Females of brood parasitic shiny cowbirds, Molothrus bonariensis, search and prospect host nests, synchronizing parasitism with host laying. This behavior is sex-specific, as females perform this task without male's assistance. Host nests must be removed from the female's memory "library" after being parasitized, to avoid repeated parasitism, or when they become unavailable because of predation. Thus, females must adjust their stored information about host nest status more dynamically than males, possibly leading to differences in learning flexibility. We tested for sex differences in a visual (local cues) and a spatial discrimination reversal learning task, expecting females to outperform males as an expression of greater behavioral flexibility. Both sexes learned faster the spatial than the visual task during both acquisition and reversal. In the visual task there were no sex differences in acquisition, but females reversed faster than males. In the spatial task there were no sex differences during either acquisition or reversal, possibly because of a ceiling effect: both sexes learned too fast for differences in performance to be detectable. Faster female reversal in a visual but not spatial task indicates that the greater behavioral flexibility in females may only be detectable above some level of task difficulty.

The ecological significance of time sense in animals

Time is a fundamental dimension of all biological events and it is often assumed that animals have the capacity to track the duration of experienced events (known as interval timing). Animals can potentially use temporal information as a cue during foraging, communication, predator avoidance, or navigation. Interval timing has been traditionally investigated in controlled laboratory conditions but its ecological relevance in natural environments remains unclear. While animals may time events in artificial and highly controlled conditions, they may not necessarily use temporal information in natural environments where they have access to other cues that may have more relevance than temporal information. Herein we critically evaluate the ecological contexts where interval timing has been suggested to provide adaptive value for animals. We further discuss attributes of interval timing that are rarely considered in controlled laboratory studies. Finally, we encourage consideration of ecological relevance when designing future interval-timing studies and propose future directions for such experiments.

Step changes in the intertrial interval in the midsession reversal task: Predicting pigeons' performance with the learning-to-time model

Our goal was to assess the role of timing in pigeons' performance in the midsession reversal task. In discrete-trial sessions, pigeons learned to discriminate between 2 stimuli, S1 and S2. Choices of S1 were reinforced only in the first half of the session and choices of S2 were reinforced only in the second half. Typically, pigeons choose S2 before the contingency reverses (anticipatory errors) and S1 after (perseverative errors), suggesting that they time the interval from the beginning of the session to the contingency reversal. To test this hypothesis, we exposed pigeons to a midsession reversal task and, depending on the group, either increased or decreased the ITI duration. We then contrasted the pigeons' performance with the predictions of the Learning-to-Time (LeT) model: In both conditions, preference was expected to reverse at the same time as in the previous sessions. When the ITI was doubled, pigeons' preference reversal occurred at half the trial number but at the same time as in the previous sessions. When the ITI was halved, pigeons' preference reversal occurred at a later trial but at an earlier time than in the previous sessions. Hence, pigeons' performance was only partially consistent with the predictions of LeT, suggesting that besides timing, other sources of control, such as the outcome of previous trials, seem to influence choice.

Adaptive behaviour under conflict: Deconstructing extinction, reversal, and active avoidance learning

In complex environments, organisms must respond adaptively to situations despite conflicting information. Under natural (i.e. non-laboratory) circumstances, it is rare that cues or responses are consistently paired with a single outcome. Inconsistent pairings are more common, as are situations where cues and responses are associated with multiple outcomes. Such inconsistency creates conflict, and a response that is adaptive in one scenario may not be adaptive in another. Learning to adjust responses accordingly is important for species to survive and prosper. Here we review the behavioural and brain mechanisms of responding under conflict by focusing on three popular behavioural procedures: extinction, reversal learning, and active avoidance. Extinction involves adapting from reinforcement to non-reinforcement, reversal learning involves swapping the reinforcement of cues or responses, and active avoidance involves performing a response to avoid an aversive outcome, which may conflict with other defensive strategies. We note that each of these phenomena relies on somewhat overlapping neural circuits, suggesting that such circuits may be critical for the general ability to respond appropriately under conflict.

Stimulus control depends on the subjective value of the outcome

Stimuli that provide information about likely future reinforcers tend to shift behavior, provided a reliable relation between the stimulus and the reinforcer can be discriminated. Stimuli that are apparently more reliable exert greater control over behavior. We asked how the subjective value (measured in terms of preference) of reinforcers associated with stimuli influences stimulus control. Five pigeons worked on a concurrent chains procedure in which half of all trials ended in a smaller reinforcer sooner, and the other half in a larger reinforcer later. In Signaled trials, the color and flash duration on the keys in the initial link signaled the outcome of the trial. In Conflicting probe trials, the color and the flash duration signaled conflicting information about the outcome of the trial. Choice in Signaled trials shifted toward the signaled outcome, but was never exclusive. In Conflicting probe trials, control was divided idiosyncratically between the 2 stimulus dimensions, but still favored the outcome with the higher subjective value. Thus, stimulus control depends not only on the perceived reliability of stimuli, but also on the subjective value of the outcome.

Pigeons' midsession reversal: Greater magnitude of reinforcement on the first half of the session leads to improved accuracy

In the midsession reversal task, pigeons are trained on a simultaneous two-alternative discrimination in which S1 is correct for the first half of the session and S2 is correct for the second half of the session. Optimally, pigeons should choose S1 until it stops being correct and choose S2 afterward. Instead, pigeons anticipate S2 too early and continue choosing S1 even after the reversal. Research suggests that they attempt to time the reversal rather than use the feedback from the preceding response(s). Recently, there is evidence that performance is almost optimized by generating an asymmetry between S1 and S2. For example, pigeons' accuracy improves if correct S1 responses are reinforced 100% of the time, but correct S2 responses are reinforced only 20% of the time. Similarly, accuracy improves if S1 requires one peck but S2 requires 10 pecks. Accuracy does not improve, however, if the value of S1 is less than the value of S2. In the current experiment, we manipulated the magnitude of reinforcement. For the experimental group, correct responses to S1 were reinforced with five pellets of food and correct responses to S2 were reinforced with one pellet. For the control group, all correct responses were reinforced with three pellets. Consistent with the earlier findings, results indicated that there was a significant reduction in anticipatory errors in the experimental group compared with the control, and there was no significant increase in perseverative errors.

Generalizing from the Past, Choosing the Future

Behavior in the present depends critically on experience in similar environments in the past. Such past experience may be important in controlling behavior not because it determines the strength of a behavior, but because it allows the structure of the current environment to be detected and used. We explore a prospective-control approach to understanding simple behavior. Under this approach, order in the environment allows even simple organisms to use their personal past to respond according to the likely future. The predicted future controls behavior, and past experience forms the building blocks of the predicted future. We explore how generalization affects the use of past experience to predict and respond to the future. First, we consider how generalization across various dimensions of an event determines the degree to which the structure of the environment exerts control over behavior. Next, we explore generalization from the past to the present as the method of deciding when, where, and what to do. This prospective-control approach is measurable and testable; it builds predictions from events that have already occurred, and assumes no agency. Under this prospective-control approach, generalization is fundamental to understanding both adaptive and maladaptive behavior.

The Midsession Reversal Task with Pigeons Does a Brief Delay Between Choice and Reinforcement Facilitate Reversal Learning?

In a midsession reversal task, the session begins with a simple simultaneous discrimination in which one stimulus (S1) is correct and the other stimulus (S2) is incorrect (S1+/S2-). At the midpoint of the session, the discrimination reverses and S2 becomes the correct choice (S2+/S1-). When choosing optimally, a pigeon should choose S1 until the first trial in which its choice is not reinforced and then it should shift to S2 (win-stay/lose-shift). With this task, pigeons have been shown to respond suboptimally by anticipating the reversal (making anticipatory errors) and continuing to choose S1 after the reversal (making perseverative errors). This suboptimal behavior may result from a pigeon's relative impulsivity due to the immediacy of reinforcement following choice. In other choice tasks, there is evidence that the introduction of a short delay between choice and reinforcement may decrease pigeons' impulsivity. In the present experiment, a delay was introduced between stimulus selection and reinforcement to assess whether it results in a decrease in anticipatory and perseverative errors. Pigeons that had a delay between choice and reinforcement were a bit slower in acquiring the midsession reversal task compared to those without a delay, but showed no decrease in either anticipatory or perseverative errors. It is likely that the pigeons' natural tendency to use time from the start of the session to the reversal as a cue to reverse prevented the delay from increasing accuracy on this task.

The midsession reversal task: A theoretical analysis

In the midsession reversal task, choice of one stimulus (S1) is correct for the first half of each session and choice of the other stimulus (S2) is correct for the last half of each session. Although humans and rats develop very close to what has been called a win-stay/lose-shift response strategy, pigeons do not. Pigeons start choosing S2 before the reversal, making anticipatory errors, and they keep choosing S1 after the reversal, making perseverative errors. Research suggests that the pigeons are timing the reversal from the start of the session. However, making the reversal unpredictable does not discourage the pigeons from timing. Curiously, pigeons' accuracy improves if one decreases the value of the S2 stimulus relative to the S1 stimulus. Another form of asymmetry between S1 and S2 can be found by varying, over trials, the number of S1 or S2 stimuli. Counterintuitively, if the number of S2 stimuli varies, it results in a large increase in anticipatory errors but little increase in perseverative errors. However, if the number of S1 stimuli varies over trials, it results in a large increase in perseverative errors but no increase in anticipatory errors. These last two effects suggest that in the original midsession reversal task, the pigeons are learning to reject S2 during the first half of each session and learning to reject S1 during the last half of each session. These results suggest that reject learning may also play an important role in the learning of simple simultaneous discriminations.

Past outcomes and time flexibly exert joint control over midsession reversal performance in the rat

In a midsession reversal task, subjects choose between two stimuli on every trial; only responses to one stimulus are reinforced. Halfway throughout the session, contingencies are reversed: previously reinforced responses are now extinguished and vice versa. Both, the outcome of the previous trial and the time elapsed since the beginning of the session, may predict the availability of reinforcement and determine choice. Thus, this task has typically been used to study cognitive flexibility and the temporal organization of behavior. This study assessed how past outcomes and time interact for behavioral control when each cue predicts the availability of reinforcement to a different extent. Eight rats were trained in four variations of the midsession reversal task differing in the reliability of outcomes and time as predictors of the reinforced response. We manipulated the reliability of the outcomes by providing either continuous or partial reinforcement, and the reliability of time by fixing the moment of reversal (middle of the session) or making the reversal unpredictable (semi-random trial). Results suggest that behavioral control alternates between outcomes and time according to the relative reliability of each cue. Model simulations show that outcomes and time may jointly determine behavior, and that momentary reinforcement rate may determine their relative influence.

Evidence of non-circadian timing in a low response-cost daily Time-Place Learning task with pigeons Columba Livia

Previous research has shown that rats require high response cost in order to display circadian timing in daily Time-Place Learning (TPL) tasks. For many possible reasons, no explicit effort to explore the effects of response cost on the performance of other species in these tasks has been made. Therefore, the present paper explores the effects of response cost on pigeon's performance on a daily TPL task. Head entry responses were reinforced according to a Random Interval schedule of reinforcement on one feeder during morning sessions and on another feeder during afternoon sessions. Feeders were located 8 cm apart for one group of birds (Group Near) and 56 cm apart for another group (Group Far). After 50 training sessions, testing began. Test sessions consisted of skipping either the morning or the afternoon session. Results show that most birds in the near group respond primarily on the opposite feeder during the first 20 s of the test sessions and then they switch to the correct feeder. On the other hand, most birds in Group Far respond at the same rate on both opposite and correct feeders during 20 s, and then they respond primarily on the correct feeder. The possibility of these data revealing non circadian timing for birds in a low response-cost daily TPL task is discussed along with the implications of such a finding for previous literature that claims that this type of performance could be unique to rats.

Midsession reversal learning by pigeons: Effect on accuracy of increasing the number of stimuli associated with one of the alternatives

The midsession reversal task involves a simultaneous discrimination in which choice of one stimulus (S1) is correct for the first 40 trials and choice of the other stimulus (S2) is correct for the last 40 trials of each 80-trial session. When pigeons are trained on the midsession reversal task, they appear to use the passage of time from the start of the session as a cue to reverse. As the reversal approaches, they begin to make anticipatory errors, choosing S2 early, and following the reversal they make perseverative errors, continuing to choose S1. Recent research suggests that anticipatory errors can be reduced (while not increasing perseverative errors) by reducing the probability of reinforcement for correct S2 choices from 100% to 20%. A similar effect can be found by increasing the response requirement for choice of S2 from one peck to ten pecks. In the present experiments, we asked if a similar effect could be attained by increasing the number of stimuli that, over trials, could serve as S2. Instead, in both experiments, we found that increasing the number of S2 stimuli actually increased the number of anticipatory errors. Several interpretations of this result are provided, including the possibility that attention to the variable S2 stimuli may have interfered with attention to the S1 stimulus.

Behavioural Isomorphism, Cognitive Economy and Recursive Thought in Non-Transitive Game Strategy

Game spaces in which an organism must repeatedly compete with an opponent for mutually exclusive outcomes are critical methodologies for understanding decision-making under pressure. In the non-transitive game rock, paper, scissors (RPS), the only technique that guarantees the lack of exploitation is to perform randomly in accordance with mixed-strategy. However, such behavior is thought to be outside bounded rationality and so decision-making can become deterministic, predictable, and ultimately exploitable. This review identifies similarities across economics, neuroscience, nonlinear dynamics, human, and animal cognition literatures, and provides a taxonomy of RPS strategy. RPS strategies are discussed in terms of (a) whether the relevant computations require sensitivity to item frequency, the cyclic relationships between responses, or the outcome of the previous trial, and (b) whether the strategy is framed around the self or other. The negative implication of this taxonomy is that despite the differences in cognitive economy and recursive thought, many of the identified strategies are behaviorally isomorphic. This makes it difficult to infer strategy from behavior. The positive implication is that this isomorphism can be used as a novel design feature in furthering our understanding of the attribution, agency, and acquisition of strategy in RPS and other game spaces.

Transitive inference in pigeons may result from differential tendencies to reject the test stimuli acquired during training

In the five-term, transitive inference task used with animals, pigeons are trained on four simultaneous discrimination premise pairs: A + B -, B + C -, C + D -, D + E -. Typically, when tested with the BD pair, most pigeons show a transitive inference effect, choosing B over D. Two non-inferential hypotheses have been proposed to account for this effect but neither has been reliably supported by research. Here we test a third non-inferential hypothesis that the preference for B arises because the animals have not had as much experience with B - in the A + B - discrimination as they have had with the D - in the C + D - discrimination. To test this hypothesis we trained the Experimental Group with the A + B - discrimination in which, over trials, there were four possible A + stimuli that could appear. This was done to encourage the pigeons to learn to reject the B - stimulus. For the Control Group there was only one A + stimulus over trials, as is typically the case. We also varied the nature of the stimuli between groups, such that colors served as the stimuli for half of the pigeons, whereas flags of different counties served as stimuli for the remaining pigeons. In both stimulus conditions, for the Experiment Group, we found little preference for stimulus B over stimulus D, whereas for the Control Group we found the typical preference for stimulus B. Thus, we propose that it is not necessary to attribute the transitive inference effect to an inferential process.

Sooner Rather Than Later: Precrastination Rather Than Procrastination

Putting things off as long as possible (procrastination) is a well-known tendency. Less well known is the tendency to attempt to get things done as soon as possible, even if that involves extra effort ( precrastination). Since its discovery in 2014, precrastination has been demonstrated in humans and animals and has recently been revealed in an analogous tendency called the mere-urgency effect. Trying to get things done as soon as one can may reflect optimal foraging, but another less obvious factor may also contribute—reducing cognitive demands associated with having to remember what to do when. Individual differences may also play a role. Understanding precrastination will have important implications for explaining why hurrying happens as often as it does and may help reduce the chance that haste makes waste.

The effect of reinforcement probability on time discrimination in the midsession reversal task

We examined how biasing time perception affects choice in a midsession reversal task. Given a simultaneous discrimination between stimuli S1 and S2, with choices of S1 reinforced during the first, but not the second half of the trials, and choices of S2 reinforced during the second, but not the first half of the trials, pigeons show anticipation errors (premature choices of S2) and perseveration errors (belated choices of S1). This suggests that choice depends on timing processes, on predicting when the contingency reverses based on session duration. We exposed 7 pigeons to a midsession reversal task and manipulated the reinforcement rate on each half of the session. Compared to equal reinforcement rates on both halves of the session, when the reinforcement rate on the first half was lower than on the second half, performance showed more anticipation and less perseveration errors, and when the reinforcement rate on the first half was higher than on the second half, performance showed a remarkable reduction of both types of errors. These results suggest that choice depends on both time into the session and the outcome of previous trials. They also challenge current models of timing to integrate local effects.

End-state comfort meets pre-crastination

Research on motor planning has revealed two seemingly contradictory phenomena. One is the end-state comfort effect, the tendency to grasp objects in physically awkward ways for the sake of comfortable or easy-to-control final postures (Rosenbaum et al., Attention and Performance XIII: Motor representation and control, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, New Jersey, 1990). The other is pre-crastination, the tendency to hasten the completion of tasks even at the expense of extra physical effort (Rosenbaum et al., Psychol Sci 25:1487-1496, 2014). End-state comfort seems to reflect emphasis on final states, whereas pre-crastination seems to reflect emphasis on initial states. How can both effects exist? We sought to resolve this seeming conflict by noting, first, that the effects have been tested in different contexts. End-state comfort has been tested with grasping, whereas pre-crastination has been tested with walking plus grasping. Second, both effects may reflect planning that aids aiming, as already demonstrated for end-state comfort but not yet tested for pre-crastination. We tested the two effects in a single walk-and-grasp task and found that demands on aiming influenced both effects, although precrastination was not fully influenced by changes in the demands of aiming. We conclude that end-state comfort and precrastination are both aiming-related, but that precrastination also reflects a desire to hasten early task completion.

Anticipation of a midsession reversal in humans

In a two-stimulus visual discrimination choice task with a reversal in reward contingencies midway through each session, pigeons produce a surprising number of anticipatory errors (i.e., responding to the second-correct stimulus before the reversal) based on failure to inhibit timing-based intrusion errors; limited prior research has suggested humans' performance is qualitatively different. Here we illustrate a partial replication of previous findings in humans, but suggest based on our results that humans process these tasks in a manner similar to pigeons. Humans made relatively few but consistent errors across both simultaneous- and successive-choice experiments. Anticipation errors were limited when the identity of the first-correct stimulus alternated between sessions, consistent with the behaviour of pigeons. Subsequent experiments found evidence for anticipation on a purely temporal simultaneous choice task, and fewer errors with symmetrical reinforcement and punishment of responses on a sequential choice task. Interval timing causes conflicts with decision-making processes on the midsession reversal task that are consistent, but differ in magnitude, across species.

Environment tracking and signal following in a reinforcer-ratio reversal procedure

Several studies suggest that the degree of control by reinforcer ratios (environment tracking) and by exteroceptive stimuli that signal future reinforcer availability (signal following) depends on environmental certainty: As reinforcers become more likely at one location, environmental contingencies exert stronger control and exteroceptive stimuli exert weaker control. This research has not yet been extended to environments in which reinforcer availability changes across time, even though such changes are present in most natural environments. Thus, in the present experiment, we examined environment tracking and signal following in a concurrent schedule in which the reinforcer ratio reversed to its reciprocal 30 s after a reinforcer delivery and keylight-color stimuli signaled the likely or definite time or location of the next reinforcer. Across conditions, we manipulated environmental certainty by varying the probability of reinforcer deliveries on the locally richer key. This made the location of future reinforcers at a particular time more or less certain, but did not change the overall reinforcer ratio. Changes in local environmental certainty had little to no effect on environment tracking and signal following; in all conditions, keylight-color stimuli strongly controlled choice and reinforcer ratios exerted weak control. The present findings suggest that the extent of environment tracking and signal following is primarily determined by global, not local, environmental certainty.

Midsession shifts in reward probability and the control of behavioral variability

Extensive research has shown that the variability of organismal behavior is great when contingent reinforcement is delayed, small, or improbable. This research has generally employed stable response-reinforcer relationships, and therefore is limited in its explanatory scope with respect to a dynamic environment. We conducted two experiments to investigate whether pigeons' conditioned pecking behavior shows anticipatory or perseverative patterns of behavioral variability when the reinforcement probability reliably changes within experimental sessions. In Experiment 1, three pigeons received alternating sessions in which the reinforcement probability (35% or 4.2%) was shifted at the midpoint of each session in the presence of the same discrete cue. Experiment 2 featured a similar design, but with the inclusion of a discrete visual cue that changed at the session midpoint, and thus unambiguously indicated reinforcement probability. Local reinforcement rates only reliably controlled response variability when a discrete visual cue was available. Without this, pigeons did not discriminate between trial types in the first halves of sessions, and showed evidence of perseveration of response variability following a within-session shift. Critically, this is the first experimental demonstration that the relationship between reinforcement probability and behavioral variability is moderated by another factor (i.e., trial position within a session). This study thus expands our understanding of the control of behavioral variability as a function of experiential factors.

Spatial midsession reversal learning in rats: Effects of egocentric Cue use and memory

The midsession reversal task has been used to investigate behavioral flexibility and cue use in non-human animals, with results indicating differences in the degree of control by environmental cues across species. For example, time-based control has been found in rats only when tested in a T-maze apparatus and under specific conditions in which position and orientation (i.e., egocentric) cues during the intertrial interval could not be used to aid performance. Other research in an operant setting has shown that rats often produce minimal errors around the reversal location, demonstrating response patterns similar to patterns exhibited by humans and primates in this task. The current study aimed to reduce, but not eliminate, the ability for rats to utilize egocentric cues by placing the response levers on the opposite wall of the chamber in relation to the pellet dispenser. Results showed that rats made minimal errors prior to the reversal, suggesting time-based cues were not controlling responses, and that they switched to the second correct stimulus within a few trials after the reversal event. Video recordings also revealed highly structured patterns of behavior by the majority of rats, which often differed depending on which response was reinforced. We interpret these findings as evidence that rats are adept at utilizing their own egocentric cues and that these cues, along with memory for the recent response-reinforcement contingencies, aid in maximizing reinforcement over the session.

Within-session reversal learning in rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta)

In a midsession reversal (MSR) task, animals are typically presented with a simple, simultaneous discrimination (S1+, S2-) where contingencies are reversed (S1-, S2+) half-way through each session. This paradigm creates multiple, relevant cues that can aid in maximizing overall reinforcement. Recent research has shown that pigeons show systematic anticipatory and perseverative errors across the session, which increase as a function of proximity to the reversal trial. This behavior has been theorized to indicate primary control by temporal cues across the session, instead of the cues provided by recent reinforcement history that appear to control behavior shown by humans. Rats, however, appear to be guided by recent reinforcement history when tested in an operant context, thereby demonstrating behavior that parallels that seen in humans, but they appear to be guided by temporal cues when tested in an open-field apparatus, showing behavior more akin to that seen in pigeons. We tested rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta) on the MSR with a computerized simultaneous visual discrimination to assess whether they would show errors indicative of control by time or by recent reinforcement history. When a single reversal point occurred midsession, rhesus macaques showed no anticipation of the reversal and a similar level of perseveration to rats tested in an operant setting. Nearly identical results also were observed when the monkeys were trained with a single, variable reversal point or with multiple, variable reversal points within a session. These results indicate that temporal cues are not guiding response flexibility in rhesus macaque visual discrimination.

Change in the relative contributions of habit and working memory facilitates serial reversal learning expertise in rhesus monkeys

Functionally distinct memory systems likely evolved in response to incompatible demands placed on learning by distinct environmental conditions. Working memory appears adapted, in part, for conditions that change frequently, making rapid acquisition and brief retention of information appropriate. In contrast, habits form gradually over many experiences, adapting organisms to contingencies of reinforcement that are stable over relatively long intervals. Serial reversal learning provides an opportunity to simultaneously examine the processes involved in adapting to rapidly changing and relatively stable contingencies. In serial reversal learning, selecting one of the two simultaneously presented stimuli is positively reinforced, while selection of the other is not. After a preference for the positive stimulus develops, the contingencies of reinforcement reverse. Naïve subjects adapt to such reversals gradually, perseverating in selection of the previously rewarded stimulus. Experts reverse rapidly according to a win-stay, lose-shift response pattern. We assessed whether a change in the relative control of choice by habit and working memory accounts for the development of serial reversal learning expertise. Across three experiments, we applied manipulations intended to attenuate the contribution of working memory but leave the contribution of habit intact. We contrasted performance following long and short intervals in Experiments 1 and 2, and we interposed a competing cognitive load between trials in Experiment 3. These manipulations slowed the acquisition of reversals in expert subjects, but not naïve subjects, indicating that serial reversal learning expertise is facilitated by a shift in the control of choice from passively acquired habit to actively maintained working memory.

Rats' midsession reversal performance: the nature of the response

The midsession reversal task involves a simple simultaneous discrimination that predictably reverses midway through a session. Under various conditions, pigeons generally both anticipate the reversal and perseverate once it has occurred, whereas rats tend to make very few of either kind of error. In the present research, we investigated the hypothesis that the difference in performance between rats and pigeons is related to the nature of the responses made. We hypothesized that rats could have been better at bridging the intertrial interval by keeping the relevant paw close to the lever while eating, whereas the pigeons had to remove their beak from the response key and insert it into the feeder, thus making it difficult to mediate the response last made. In the present experiment, in successive phases, rats were trained to leverpress or nose-poke on a 40-trial midsession reversal, an 80-trial midsession reversal, and a variable-location reversal. The results showed that the leverpress group acquired the task faster than the nose-poke group, but that both groups reached comparable levels of performance. Thus, the difference in the natures of the responses cannot fully account for the differences in accuracy between rats and pigeons. Additionally, differences in the types of errors made by the two groups suggest that the nature of the response plays different roles in the performance of this task.

Midsession reversals with pigeons: visual versus spatial discriminations and the intertrial interval

Discrimination reversal learning has been used as a measure of species flexibility in dealing with changes in reinforcement contingency. In the simultaneous-discrimination, midsession-reversal task, one stimulus (S1) is correct for the first half of the session, and the other stimulus (S2) is correct for the second half. After training, pigeons show a curious pattern of choices: They begin to respond to S2 well before the reversal point (i.e., they make anticipatory errors), and they continue to respond to S1 well after the reversal (i.e., they make perseverative errors). That is, pigeons appear to be using the passage of time or the number of trials into the session as a cue to reverse, and are less sensitive to the feedback at the point of reversal. To determine whether the nature of the discrimination or a failure of memory for the stimulus chosen on the preceding trial contributed to the pigeons' less-than-optimal performance, we manipulated the nature of the discrimination (spatial or visual) and the duration of the intertrial interval (5.0 or 1.5 s), in order to determine the conditions under which pigeons would show efficient reversal learning. The major finding was that only when the discrimination was spatial and the intertrial interval was short did the pigeons perform optimally.

Behavioural and neural modulation of win-stay but not lose-shift strategies as a function of outcome value in Rock, Paper, Scissors

Competitive environments in which individuals compete for mutually-exclusive outcomes require rational decision making in order to maximize gains but often result in poor quality heuristics. Reasons for the greater reliance on lose-shift relative to win-stay behaviour shown in previous studies were explored using the game of Rock, Paper, Scissors and by manipulating the value of winning and losing. Decision-making following a loss was characterized as relatively fast and relatively inflexible both in terms of the failure to modulate the magnitude of lose-shift strategy and the lack of significant neural modulation. In contrast, decision-making following a win was characterized as relatively slow and relatively flexible both in terms of a behavioural increase in the magnitude of win-stay strategy and a neural modulation of feedback-related negativity (FRN) and stimulus-preceding negativity (SPN) following outcome value modulation. The win-stay/lose-shift heuristic appears not to be a unified mechanism, with the former relying on System 2 processes and the latter relying on System 1 processes. Our ability to play rationally appears more likely when the outcome is positive and when the value of wins are low, highlighting how vulnerable we can be when trying to succeed during competition.

The Organization of Behavior Over Time: Insights from Mid-Session Reversal

What are the mechanisms by which behavior is organized sequentially over time? The recently developed mid-session reversal (MSR) task offers new insights into this fundamental question. The typical MSR task is arranged to have a single reversed discrimination occurring in a consistent location within each session and across sessions. In this task, we examine the relevance of time, reinforcement, and other factors as the switching cue in the sequential modulation of control in MSR. New analyses also highlight some of the potential mechanisms underlying this serially organized behavior. MSR provides new evidence and we offer some ideas about how cues interact to compete for the control of behavior within and across sessions. We suggest that MSR is an excellent preparation for studying the competition among psychological states and their resolution toward action.

Who are the real bird brains? Qualitative differences in behavioral flexibility between dogs (Canis familiaris) and pigeons (Columba livia)

Pigeons given a simultaneous spatial discrimination reversal, in which a single reversal occurs at the midpoint of each session, consistently show anticipation prior to the reversal as well as perseveration after the reversal, suggesting that they use a less effective cue (time or trial number into the session) than what would be optimal to maximize reinforcement (local feedback from the most recent trials). In contrast, rats (Rattus norvegicus) and humans show near-optimal reversal learning on this task. To determine whether this is a general characteristic of mammals, in the present research, pigeons (Columba livia) and dogs (Canis familiaris) were tested with a simultaneous spatial discrimination mid-session reversal. Overall, dogs performed the task more poorly than pigeons. Interestingly, both pigeons and dogs employed what resembled a timing strategy. However, dogs showed greater perseverative errors, suggesting that they may have relatively poorer working memory and inhibitory control with this task. The greater efficiency shown by pigeons with this task suggests they are better able to time and use the feedback from their preceding choice as the basis of their future choice, highlighting what may be a qualitative difference between the species.

Pigeons' use of cues in a repeated five-trial-sequence, single-reversal task

We studied behavioral flexibility, or the ability to modify one's behavior in accordance with the changing environment, in pigeons using a reversal-learning paradigm. In two experiments, each session consisted of a series of five-trial sequences involving a simple simultaneous color discrimination in which a reversal could occur during each sequence. The ideal strategy would be to start each sequence with a choice of S1 (the first correct stimulus) until it was no longer correct, and then to switch to S2 (the second correct stimulus), thus utilizing cues provided by local reinforcement (feedback from the preceding trial). In both experiments, subjects showed little evidence of using local reinforcement cues, but instead used the mean probabilities of reinforcement for S1 and S2 on each trial within each sequence. That is, subjects showed remarkably similar behavior, regardless of where (or, in Exp. 2, whether) a reversal occurred during a given sequence. Therefore, subjects appeared to be relatively insensitive to the consequences of responses (local feedback) and were not able to maximize reinforcement. The fact that pigeons did not use the more optimal feedback afforded by recent reinforcement contingencies to maximize their reinforcement has implications for their use of flexible response strategies under reversal-learning conditions.

Midsession reversal learning: why do pigeons anticipate and perseverate?

Past research has shown that when given a simultaneous visual-discrimination midsession reversal task, pigeons typically anticipate the reversal well before it occurs and perseverate after it occurs. It appears that they use the estimation of time (or trial number) into the session, rather than (or in addition to) the more reliable cue, the outcome from the previous trial (i.e., a win-stay/lose-shift response rule), to determine which stimulus they should choose. In the present research, we investigated several variables that we thought might encourage pigeons to use a more efficient response strategy. In Experiment 1, we used a treadle-stepping response, rather than key pecking, to test the hypothesis that reflexive key pecking may have biased pigeons to estimate the time (or trial number) into the session at which the reversal would occur. In Experiment 2, we attempted to make the point of reversal in the session more salient by inserting irrelevant trials with stimuli different from the original discriminative stimuli, and for a separate group, we added a 5-s time-out penalty following incorrect choices. The use of a treadle-stepping response did not improve reversal performance, and although we found some improvement in reversal performance when the reversal was signaled and when errors resulted in a time-out, we found little evidence for performance that approached the win-stay/lose-shift accuracy shown by rats.

A three-stimulus midsession reversal task in pigeons with visual and spatial discriminative stimuli

In a two-stimulus visual discrimination task with a reversal in reward contingencies midway through each session, pigeons produce a surprising number of both anticipatory (i.e., before the reversal) and perseverative (i.e., after the reversal) errors. In the current work, we examined pigeons' (Columba livia) patterns of responding on a 90-trial, three-stimulus visual or spatial discrimination task with two changes in reward contingency (one after Trial 30 and one after Trial 60) during each session. On probe sessions where pecking the first-correct stimulus was rewarded for the first 60 rather than 30 trials, pigeons on a spatial discrimination pecked the first-correct stimulus until it was no longer rewarded, while visual discrimination birds ceased responding to the first-correct stimulus even while it was still being rewarded. On probe sessions where the onset of the first trial was delayed 7 min, pigeons' performance on the visual discrimination was disrupted by the interval delay, but performance in the spatial condition was more similar to baseline. Pigeons use different strategies (temporal control vs. local reinforcement) on midsession reversal tasks with visual versus spatial stimuli, suggesting that they are selectively permeable to changes in information (global vs. local reinforcement rates).

Decision making by humans in a behavioral task: do humans, like pigeons, show suboptimal choice?

Consistent with human gambling behavior but contrary to optimal foraging theory, pigeons show a strong preference for an alternative with low probability and high payoff (a gambling-like alternative) over an alternative with a greater net payoff (Zentall & Stagner, Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 278, 1203-1208, 2011). In the present research, we asked whether humans would show suboptimal choice on a task involving choices with probabilities similar to those for pigeons. In Experiment 1, when we selected participants on the basis of their self-reported gambling activities, we found a significantly greater choice of the alternative involving low probability and high payoff (gambling-like alternative) than for a group that reported an absence of gambling activity. In Experiment 2, we found that when the inhibiting abilities of typical humans were impaired by a self-regulatory depletion manipulation, they were more likely to choose the gambling-like alternative. Taken together, the results suggest that this task is suitable for the comparative study of suboptimal decision-making behavior and the mechanisms that underlie it.

Repeated acquisition and discrimination reversal in the squirrel monkey (Saimiri sciureus)

Repeated acquisition and discrimination reversal tasks are often used to examine behavioral relations of, respectively, learning and cognitive flexibility. Surprisingly, despite their frequent use in cognitive neuroscience and behavioral pharmacology, variables that control performance under these two tasks have not been widely studied. The present studies were conducted to directly investigate the controlling variables in nonhuman primates. Squirrel monkeys were trained with a touchscreen variant of the repeated acquisition task in which a novel pair of S(+)/S(-) stimuli was presented daily. Subjects learned to discriminate the two stimuli (acquisition) and, subsequently, with the contingencies switched (reversal). Results indicate that rates of both acquisition and reversal learning increased across successive sessions, but that rate of reversal learning remained slower than acquisition learning, i.e., more trials were needed for mastery. Subsequent experiments showed this difference between the rate of learning novel discriminations and reversal was reliable for at least 5 days between acquisition and reversal and notwithstanding the interpolation of additional discriminations. Experimental analysis of the S(+)/S(-) elements of the tasks revealed that the difference in the rate of learning could not be attributed to a relatively aversive quality of the S(-) or to a relatively appetitive quality of the S(+), but, rather, to contextual control by the S(+)/S(-) stimulus complex. Thus, if either element (S(+) or S(-)) of the stimulus complex was replaced by a novel stimulus, the rate of acquisition approximated that expected with a novel stimulus pair. These results improve our understanding of fundamental features of discrimination acquisition and reversal.

Pigeons show near-optimal win-stay/lose-shift performance on a simultaneous-discrimination, midsession reversal task with short intertrial intervals

Discrimination reversal tasks have been used as a measure of species flexibility in dealing with changes in reinforcement contingency. The simultaneous-discrimination, midsession reversal task is one in which one stimulus (S1) is correct for the first 40 trials of an 80-trial session and the other stimulus (S2) is correct for the remaining trials. After many sessions of training with this task, pigeons show a curious pattern of choices. They begin to respond to S2 well before the reversal point (they make anticipatory errors) and they continue to respond to S1 well after the reversal (they make perseverative errors). That is, they appear to be using the passage of time or number of trials into the session as a cue to reverse. We tested the hypothesis that these errors resulted in part from a memory deficit (the inability to remember over the intertrial interval, ITI, both the choice on the preceding trial and the outcome of that choice) by manipulating the duration of the ITI (1.5, 5, and 10 s). We found support for the hypothesis as pigeons with a short 1.5-s ITI showed close to optimal win-stay/lose-shift accuracy.

The cognitive mechanisms of optimal sampling

How can animals learn the prey densities available in an environment that changes unpredictably from day to day, and how much effort should they devote to doing so, rather than exploiting what they already know? Using a two-armed bandit situation, we simulated several processes that might explain the trade-off between exploring and exploiting. They included an optimising model, dynamic backward sampling; a dynamic version of the matching law; the Rescorla-Wagner model; a neural network model; and ɛ-greedy and rule of thumb models derived from the study of reinforcement learning in artificial intelligence. Under conditions like those used in published studies of birds' performance under two-armed bandit conditions, all models usually identified the more profitable source of reward, and did so more quickly when the reward probability differential was greater. Only the dynamic programming model switched from exploring to exploiting more quickly when available time in the situation was less. With sessions of equal length presented in blocks, a session-length effect was induced in some of the models by allowing motivational, but not memory, carry-over from one session to the next. The rule of thumb model was the most successful overall, though the neural network model also performed better than the remaining models.