↓ Skip to main content

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

Overview of attention for article published in Learning & Behavior, September 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
peer_reviews
1 peer review site

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
17 Mendeley
Title
Pigeons’ use of cues in a repeated five-trial-sequence, single-reversal task
Published in
Learning & Behavior, September 2012
DOI 10.3758/s13420-012-0091-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rebecca M. Rayburn-Reeves, Thomas R. Zentall

Abstract

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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 17 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 6%
Canada 1 6%
Unknown 15 88%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 4 24%
Student > Master 4 24%
Researcher 3 18%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 6%
Other 3 18%
Unknown 1 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 6 35%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 29%
Neuroscience 2 12%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 6%
Design 1 6%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 2 12%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 September 2016.
All research outputs
#15,169,543
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Learning & Behavior
#295
of 904 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#103,363
of 177,050 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Learning & Behavior
#1
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 904 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 177,050 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them