» Articles » PMID: 31011893

Relative Reinforcer Rates Determine Pigeons' Attention Allocation when Separately Trained Stimuli Are Presented Together

Overview
Journal Learn Behav
Publisher Springer
Date 2019 Apr 24
PMID 31011893
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Previous research suggests that organisms allocate more attention to stimuli associated with higher reinforcer rates. This finding has been replicated several times when stimuli are trained together as compounds, but not in other procedures. Thus, the generality of the relation between relative reinforcer rates and divided attention is not well established. Therefore, we investigated whether relative reinforcer rates determine attention allocation when stimuli are trained separately and then encountered together. Pigeons learned to associate two colors and two frequencies of key light on/off alternation with a left or right comparison key in a symbolic 0-s delayed matching-to-sample task. Across conditions, we varied the probability of reinforcement associated with each stimulus dimension during training. After training, we introduced test trials in which a color and flash-frequency stimulus were presented simultaneously. During sample-stimulus presentation in test trials, all pigeons preferred the stimulus associated with the higher reinforcer rate, suggesting that more attention was allocated to that stimulus. Interestingly, such attention allocation did not result in preference for the comparison that matched that stimulus. Instead, all pigeons preferred the comparison that was physically closer to the stimulus associated with the higher reinforcer rate, suggesting that comparison choice was controlled by the location of that stimulus. Nevertheless, overall, our results provide the first evidence that relative reinforcer rates determine divided attention between separately trained stimuli and thus demonstrate the generality of the relation between relative reinforcement and attention allocation. We suggest several avenues for future research to establish further the generality of this relation.

References
1.
Johnson D, Cumming W . Some determiners of attention. J Exp Anal Behav. 1968; 11(2):157-66. PMC: 1338465. DOI: 10.1901/jeab.1968.11-157. View

2.
Lander D, Irwin R . Multiple schedules: effects of the distribution of reinforcements between component on the distribution of responses between conponents. J Exp Anal Behav. 1968; 11(5):517-24. PMC: 1338520. DOI: 10.1901/jeab.1968.11-517. View

3.
Dinsmoor J . The role of observing and attention in establishing stimulus control. J Exp Anal Behav. 1985; 43(3):365-81. PMC: 1348149. DOI: 10.1901/jeab.1985.43-365. View

4.
Maki Jr W, Leith C . Shared attention in pigeons. J Exp Anal Behav. 1973; 19(2):345-9. PMC: 1334085. DOI: 10.1901/jeab.1973.19-345. View

5.
Shahan T, Podlesnik C . Divided attention performance and the matching law. Learn Behav. 2006; 34(3):255-61. DOI: 10.3758/bf03192881. View