| Title |
Pigeons perform poorly on a midsession reversal task without rigid temporal regularity
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Animal Cognition, February 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10071-016-0962-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Neil McMillan, Christopher B. Sturdy, Jeffrey M. Pisklak, Marcia L. Spetch |
| Abstract |
Animals make surprising anticipatory and perseverative errors when faced with a midsession reversal of reinforcer contingencies on a choice task with highly predictable stimulus-time relationships. In the current study, we asked whether pigeons would anticipate changes in reinforcement when the reinforcer contingencies for each stimulus were not fixed in time. We compared the responses of pigeons on a simultaneous choice task when the initially correct stimulus was randomized or alternated across sessions. Pigeons showed more errors overall compared with the typical results of a standard midsession reversal procedure, and they did not show the typical anticipatory errors prior to the contingency reversal. Probe tests that manipulated the spacing between trials also suggested that timing of the session exerted little control of pigeons' behavior. The temporal structure of the experimental session thus appears to be an important determinant for animals' use of time in midsession reversal procedures. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 1 | 6% |
| Austria | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 16 | 89% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 7 | 39% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 28% |
| Researcher | 2 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 11% |
| Professor | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 1 | 6% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 8 | 44% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 7 | 39% |
| Neuroscience | 2 | 11% |
| Unknown | 1 | 6% |
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 06 June 2016.
All research outputs
#20,308,732
of 22,849,304 outputs
Outputs from Animal Cognition
#1,394
of 1,455 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#251,724
of 297,955 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Animal Cognition
#30
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,849,304 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,455 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 33.5. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 297,955 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 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.