» Articles » PMID: 37063537

Probabilistic Reinforcement Precludes Transitive Inference: A Preliminary Study

Overview
Journal Front Psychol
Date 2023 Apr 17
PMID 37063537
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

In the basic verbal task from Piaget, when a relation of the form if A > B and B > C is given, a logical inference A > C is expected. This process is called transitive inference (TI). The adapted version for animals involves the presentation of a simultaneous discrimination between stimuli pairs. In this way, when A+B-, B+C-, C+D-, D+E- is trained, a B>D preference is expected, assuming that if A>B>C>D>E, then B>D. This effect has been widely reported using several procedures and different species. In the current experiment TI was evaluated employing probabilistic reinforcement. Thus, for the positive stimuli a .7 probability was administered and for the negative stimuli a .3 probability was administered. Under this arrangement the relation A>B>C>D>E is still allowed, but TI becomes more difficult. Five pigeons (Columba Livia) were exposed to the mentioned arrangement. Only one pigeon reached the criterion in C+D- discrimination, whereas the remaining did not. Only the one who successfully solved C+D- was capable of learning TI, whereas the others were not. Additionally, it was found that correct response ratios did not predict BD performance. Consequently, probabilistic reinforcement disrupted TI, but some positional ordering was retained in the test. The results suggest that TI might be affected by associative strength but also by the positional ordering of the stimuli. The discussion addresses the two main accounts of TI: the associative account and the ordinal representation account.

Citing Articles

Effects of posttransfer feedback informativeness in a transitive inference task.

Joy Y, Kao T, Jensen G Mem Cognit. 2024; .

PMID: 39477864 DOI: 10.3758/s13421-024-01654-0.

References
1.
Zentall T, Peng D, Miles L . Transitive inference in pigeons may result from differential tendencies to reject the test stimuli acquired during training. Anim Cogn. 2019; 22(5):619-624. DOI: 10.1007/s10071-019-01257-2. View

2.
Frank M, Rudy J, OReilly R . Transitivity, flexibility, conjunctive representations, and the hippocampus. II. A computational analysis. Hippocampus. 2003; 13(3):341-54. DOI: 10.1002/hipo.10084. View

3.
Jensen G, Terrace H, Ferrera V . Discovering Implied Serial Order Through Model-Free and Model-Based Learning. Front Neurosci. 2019; 13:878. PMC: 6710392. DOI: 10.3389/fnins.2019.00878. View

4.
Garcia-Leal O, Esparza C, Avila Chauvet L, Camarena-Perez H, Vilchez Z . Pigeons and the Ambiguous-Cue Problem: A Riddle that Remains Unsolved. Front Psychol. 2017; 8:941. PMC: 5463016. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00941. View

5.
Gazes R, Lazareva O . Does cognition differ across species, and how do we know? Lessons from research in transitive inference. J Exp Psychol Anim Learn Cogn. 2021; 47(3):223-233. DOI: 10.1037/xan0000301. View