» Articles » PMID: 21264568

Pigeons Exhibit Higher Accuracy for Chosen Memory Tests Than for Forced Memory Tests in Duration Matching-to-sample

Overview
Journal Learn Behav
Publisher Springer
Date 2011 Jan 26
PMID 21264568
Citations 15
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Following training to match 2- and 8-sec durations of feederlight to red and green comparisons with a 0-sec baseline delay, pigeons were allowed to choose to take a memory test or to escape the memory test. The effects of sample omission, increases in retention interval, and variation in trial spacing on selection of the escape option and accuracy were studied. During initial testing, escaping the test did not increase as the task became more difficult, and there was no difference in accuracy between chosen and forced memory tests. However, with extended training, accuracy for chosen tests was significantly greater than for forced tests. In addition, two pigeons exhibited higher accuracy on chosen tests than on forced tests at the short retention interval and greater escape rates at the long retention interval. These results have not been obtained in previous studies with pigeons when the choice to take the test or to escape the test is given before test stimuli are presented. It appears that task-specific methodological factors may determine whether a particular species will exhibit the two behavioral effects that were initially proposed as potentially indicative of metacognition.

Citing Articles

Rats did not show evidence of prospective information-seeking: a pilot study.

Iwasaki S, Taniuchi T Front Behav Neurosci. 2023; 17:1253780.

PMID: 38111475 PMC: 10725935. DOI: 10.3389/fnbeh.2023.1253780.


Hoarding titmice predominantly use Familiarity, and not Recollection, when remembering cache locations.

Smulders T, Douglas L, Reza D, Male L, Prysce A, Alix A Anim Cogn. 2023; 26(6):1929-1943.

PMID: 37865619 PMC: 10769918. DOI: 10.1007/s10071-023-01829-3.


Chimpanzees show some evidence of selectively acquiring information by using tools, making inferences, and evaluating possible outcomes.

Perdue B, Evans T, Beran M PLoS One. 2018; 13(4):e0193229.

PMID: 29641519 PMC: 5894953. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0193229.


Rats know when they remember: transfer of metacognitive responding across odor-based delayed match-to-sample tests.

Templer V, Lee K, Preston A Anim Cogn. 2017; 20(5):891-906.

PMID: 28669115 PMC: 5709207. DOI: 10.1007/s10071-017-1109-3.


An assessment of domain-general metacognitive responding in rhesus monkeys.

Brown E, Templer V, Hampton R Behav Processes. 2016; 135:132-144.

PMID: 27939856 PMC: 6404529. DOI: 10.1016/j.beproc.2016.12.004.


References
1.
Zentall T . Temporal discrimination learning by pigeons. Behav Processes. 2006; 74(2):286-92. DOI: 10.1016/j.beproc.2006.09.011. View

2.
Foote A, Crystal J . Metacognition in the rat. Curr Biol. 2007; 17(6):551-5. PMC: 1861845. DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2007.01.061. View

3.
Smith J, Shields W, Washburn D . The comparative psychology of uncertainty monitoring and metacognition. Behav Brain Sci. 2004; 26(3):317-39. DOI: 10.1017/s0140525x03000086. View

4.
Smith J, SHIELDS W, Allendoerfer K, WASHBURN D . Memory monitoring by animals and humans. J Exp Psychol Gen. 1998; 127(3):227-50. DOI: 10.1037//0096-3445.127.3.227. View

5.
Smith J, Beran M, Couchman J, Coutinho M . The comparative study of metacognition: sharper paradigms, safer inferences. Psychon Bull Rev. 2008; 15(4):679-91. PMC: 4607312. DOI: 10.3758/pbr.15.4.679. View