↓ Skip to main content

Transitive inference in pigeons: Measuring the associative values of Stimuli B and D

Overview of attention for article published in Behavioural Processes, December 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog

Readers on

mendeley
56 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Transitive inference in pigeons: Measuring the associative values of Stimuli B and D
Published in
Behavioural Processes, December 2011
DOI 10.1016/j.beproc.2011.12.001
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Several reinforcement-based models have been proposed to explain transitive-like behavior in nonverbal transitive inference tasks. These models assume that the initial training required for memorizing the premises produces an ordered series of associative values (A>B>C>D>E); these values can then be used to select the "transitively correct" stimulus in a novel pair (e.g., BD). Our study experimentally tested this assumption by using resistance-to-extinction and resistance-to-reinforcement techniques to obtain empirical measures of associative strength for Stimuli B and D. We first measured the associative strengths of these stimuli after completion of initial training with overlapping pairs of colored squares (A+B-, B+C-, C+D-, and D+E-) using resistance-to-extinction and resistance-to-reinforcement procedures. Next, we used massed presentations of Pair D+E- (termed bias reversal) that ought to increase the associative value of Stimulus D, and again measured the associative strengths of the stimuli. None of our experimental measures of associative strength correlated with pigeons' behavior in the BD test or with BD performance predicted by associative models either before or after bias reversal (Wynne, 1995; Siemann and Delius, 1998). These results question validity of reinforcement-based models for explaining animals' behavior in nonverbal TI tasks.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 56 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Spain 1 2%
Unknown 55 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 14 25%
Student > Bachelor 11 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 9%
Student > Master 4 7%
Other 6 11%
Unknown 9 16%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 17 30%
Psychology 12 21%
Neuroscience 4 7%
Engineering 3 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 4%
Other 6 11%
Unknown 12 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 20 April 2012.
All research outputs
#7,605,073
of 28,841,988 outputs
Outputs from Behavioural Processes
#490
of 1,808 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#59,777
of 263,929 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Behavioural Processes
#6
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 28,841,988 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,808 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 263,929 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.