↓ Skip to main content

Adaptive learning and forgetting in an unconventional experimental routine

Overview of attention for article published in Animal Cognition, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
17 Mendeley
Title
Adaptive learning and forgetting in an unconventional experimental routine
Published in
Animal Cognition, February 2018
DOI 10.1007/s10071-018-1168-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Daniel Bell-Garrison, Nathaniel C. Rice, Elizabeth G. E. Kyonka

Abstract

Forgetting is often thought of as the inability to remember, but remembering and forgetting allow behavior to adapt to a changing environment in distinct and separable ways. Learning and forgetting were assessed concurrently in two pigeon experiments that involved the same unconventional routine where the schedule of reinforcement changed every session. Sessions were run back-to-back with a 23-h mid-session break such that in a single visit to the testing chamber, a pigeon completed the second half of one session and the first half of the next. The beginning of a new session was either signaled or unsignaled. Experiment 1 involved concurrent variable-interval variable-interval schedules with four possible reinforcer ratios. Response allocation was sensitive to the richer schedule and was retained through the mid-session break. Experiment 2 involved peak interval schedules of varying durations. Temporal discrimination was rapidly acquired before and after the mid-session break, but not retained. Signaling the session change decreased control by past contingencies in both experiments, demonstrating that learning and forgetting can be investigated separately. These results suggest that the temporal structure of training, such as multiple short daily sessions instead of one long session, can meaningfully impact measurement of animals' capacity to forget and remember.

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 %
Unknown 17 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 24%
Researcher 3 18%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 2 12%
Student > Master 2 12%
Other 1 6%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 5 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 5 29%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 18%
Computer Science 2 12%
Social Sciences 1 6%
Unknown 6 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 18 February 2018.
All research outputs
#17,930,799
of 23,023,224 outputs
Outputs from Animal Cognition
#1,308
of 1,462 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#314,624
of 446,086 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Animal Cognition
#20
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,023,224 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,462 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 33.7. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 446,086 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.