FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W154970997> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W154970997 startingPage "23" @default.
• W154970997 abstract "Transitive Inference (TI) is shown when after being told that A is better than B and B is better than C, one can answer the question, what is better A or C (in which A, B, and C are arbitrary stimuli). To avoid end-point effects (A is always better and C is never better) and provide a nonverbal task than can be used with young children and animals, the task has been expanded to 5 terms (i.e., A+B-, B+C-, C+D-, D+Ein which + means choice is reinforced and – means not reinforced). TI is found when subjects choose B when given a choice between B and D. Interestingly; TI effects have been shown in many nonhuman animals including pigeons. Several noncognitive, associative theories that have been proposed to explain TI effects have failed to account for the variety of conditions under which TI effects have been found. One cognitive account of TI performance is that organisms are able to form a mental representation of the series (A>B>C>D>E).If so, presentation of the pairs of stimuli in a linear arrangement should facilitate TI performance, whereas presentation of the pairs of stimuli in a circular arrangement should not. We trained pigeons on either a linear or circular arrangement of stimuli. Results indicate that pigeons show TI under both conditions suggesting that mental representations of the linear relation among the stimuli are not responsible for TI in pigeons. We suggest directions for future research. Transitive inference (TI) in humans involves the manipulation of premises that express a transitive relationship. For example, “Alice is taller than Bob” and “Bob is taller than Carey.” Then, from these two premises we can ask, “Who is taller, Alice or Carey?” If a subject answers, “Alice,” it is typically taken as evidence of TI, whereas if the subject answers “Carey,” it is taken as evidence for lack thereof. TI tasks like the one above have been used as a tool to assess the cognitive development of humans. Piaget (1928) showed that the ability to solve TI tasks emerge in children at about the age of seven. However, Bryant and Trabasso (1971) proposed that this 3term task could be solved without the ability to think logically because Alice is taller and Bob is taller but Carey is not taller. This is known as an end-anchor effect, where the correct choice is based upon the absolute values of end terms. They presented children with a 5-term task that avoided end-anchor effects(A+B-, B+C-, C+D-, D+Ein which + represented the correct stimulus and – represented the incorrect stimulus) and found that when memory for all premise pairs was intact, children as young as four years old showed good TI performance. McGonigle and Chalmers (1977) later augmented the 5-term task into a nonverbal task for studying TI in squirrel monkeys. In their procedure subjects were trained with four pairs of overlapping arbitrary stimuli, presented as interrelated simultaneous discriminations. First, they were trained with stimuli A and B, in which choice of A was reinforced and B was nonreinforced (i.e. A+B-). Then, they were trained with stimuli B and C, in which choice of B was reinforced and C was nonreinforced (i.e. B+C-). Pairs C+Dand D+Ewere trained in the same manner. It has been suggested that from this training an implied series from A-E develops such that A>B>C>D>E (Trabasso & Riley, 1975). Stimuli A and E serve as the endpoints of the series due to their unique reinforcement history, always reinforced and never reinforced, respectively. The purpose of the five-term series is that the critical test of TI can be derived from nonadjacent, nonendpoint stimuli B and D, which have had similar reinforcement and nonreinforcement histories. Evidence of TI, then, is choice of B over D, because B is considered to be greater than D in the series. They found that squirrel monkeys, when presented with test pair BD, chose B consistently over D (McGonigle and Chalmers, 1977). Since McGonigle and Chalmer’s seminal study of TI in squirrel monkeys, evidence of TI has been demonstrated in many animals; for example, rats (Roberts and Phelps, 1994), fish (Grosenick, Clement, & Frank, 2007), and pigeons (Fersen, Wynne, Delius, & Stadon, 1991). Furthermore, recent research has suggested that TI may have evolved to serve a functional purpose—TI has been shown to help nonhuman animals in both foraging (Weis, Kehmeier, & Schloegl, 2010) and social (Bond, Kamil, & Balda, 2003) contexts. The generality of these effects suggests that TI behavior may be governed by processes that are more basic than formal logic. One account suggests that although the three internal stimuli (B, C, and D) each have been associated with reinforcement and nonreinforcement, the actual reinforcement histories of those central stimuli may not be similar. Thus, it is likely that B has a greater associative value than D, and as such is chosen over D. In a direct test of this hypothesis, Lazareva and Wasserman (2012) trained pigeons on the 5-term task with massed presentations of the D+Epair such that the associative value of D was greater than the associative value of B. However, they found that B was still chosen over D. Fersen et al. (1991) suggested an alternative noncognitive theory to account for TI— value transfer theory (VTT). According to VTT, when two stimuli, A and B, are trained in a simultaneous discrimination such that one is always reinforced (S+) and the other is never reinforced (S-) some of the value accrued to the S+ transfers to the S-. This transfer of value enhances the value of the S-. Thus, in the case of stimuli B and D, although B and D may acquire the same degree of direct value (as the result of B+Cand D+Etraining), because responses to A were always reinforced whereas responses to C were reinforced only half of the time (when presented with B+) A should transfer more value to B than C should transfer to D. Weaver, Steirn, and Zentall (1997) tested this hypothesis by training pigeons on a 5-term task in which the values of A, C, and E were all equated. In testing; however, pigeons still reliably chose B over D. Given that both of the noncognitive theories discussed failed to account for the TI effects found, a more cognitive account may be worth looking into. Some have suggested that mental representations are a fundamental part of cognition in nonhuman animals (Gallistel, 1990). Furthermore, recent research has suggested that the hippocampus, which is involved during acquisition and testing of TI, may also be involved in integration of information and mental representations (DeVito et al., 2009; Wendelken & Bunge, 2009). Thus, it may be the case that pigeons form a mental representation of the series A>B>C>D>E such that all essential information necessary for choice of B over D is retained (Trabasso & Riley, 1975). Roberts and Phelps (1994) suggested that if mental representations are in fact aiding in TI performance, then the arrangement of the stimuli in training should affect the development of TI in the 5-term task. That is, the degree of TI found should depend on whether the stimuli were presented in a linear or a nonlinear arrangement. They trained rats on either a linear or circular arrangement of the 5term task and found that rats trained on the linear arrangement showed TI whereas those trained on the circle arrangement showed no TI. They suggested that the spatial relationships inherent in the arrangements facilitated construction of a mental representation that subsequently informed choice during testing. Although the development of TI in rats, a species that is highly sensitive to spatial cues, appears to be eliminated by the presentation of the stimuli in a circular arrangement, pigeons, that also show strong evidence TI, are much more sensitive to visual cues. Thus, the purpose of the present experiment was to explicitly test the hypothesis that the arrangement of the presentation of the stimuli (linear vs. circular) would affect the mental representation of the series by pigeons. We randomly assigned pigeons to two groups, a linear arrangement group (LA) and a circular arrangement group (CA). Each group experienced a different explicit spatial arrangement of stimuli (see Figure 1) on a touchmonitor that had been fitted to an operant chamber. All pigeons were tested with critical test pair BD in a spatial arrangement different from the one trained so that context cues from the training arrangements could not directly affect their choice. We hypothesized that, if mental representations are involved in the TI effect, then pigeons in the LA group should show evidence of TI whereas pigeons in the CA group should not." @default.
• W154970997 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W154970997 creator A5031652244 @default.
• W154970997 date "2014-07-03" @default.
• W154970997 modified "2023-09-26" @default.
• W154970997 title "Oswald Social Sciences Second Place: Do Pigeons Develop Mental Representations when Demonstrating Transitive Inference?" @default.
• W154970997 cites W1540136915 @default.
• W154970997 cites W1979654182 @default.
• W154970997 cites W1994097421 @default.
• W154970997 cites W1999913621 @default.
• W154970997 cites W2018521026 @default.
• W154970997 cites W2033067687 @default.
• W154970997 cites W2033978775 @default.
• W154970997 cites W203579714 @default.
• W154970997 cites W2043935955 @default.
• W154970997 cites W2059929438 @default.
• W154970997 cites W2073913380 @default.
• W154970997 cites W2080376519 @default.
• W154970997 cites W2098256464 @default.
• W154970997 cites W2138069637 @default.
• W154970997 cites W2171334011 @default.
• W154970997 hasPublicationYear "2014" @default.
• W154970997 type Work @default.
• W154970997 sameAs 154970997 @default.
• W154970997 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W154970997 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W154970997 hasAuthorship W154970997A5031652244 @default.
• W154970997 hasConcept C114614502 @default.
• W154970997 hasConcept C154945302 @default.
• W154970997 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W154970997 hasConcept C188147891 @default.
• W154970997 hasConcept C191399111 @default.
• W154970997 hasConcept C2776214188 @default.
• W154970997 hasConcept C33923547 @default.
• W154970997 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W154970997 hasConceptScore W154970997C114614502 @default.
• W154970997 hasConceptScore W154970997C154945302 @default.
• W154970997 hasConceptScore W154970997C15744967 @default.
• W154970997 hasConceptScore W154970997C188147891 @default.
• W154970997 hasConceptScore W154970997C191399111 @default.
• W154970997 hasConceptScore W154970997C2776214188 @default.
• W154970997 hasConceptScore W154970997C33923547 @default.
• W154970997 hasConceptScore W154970997C41008148 @default.
• W154970997 hasIssue "1" @default.
• W154970997 hasLocation W1549709971 @default.
• W154970997 hasOpenAccess W154970997 @default.
• W154970997 hasPrimaryLocation W1549709971 @default.
• W154970997 hasRelatedWork W1975693708 @default.
• W154970997 hasRelatedWork W2022967005 @default.
• W154970997 hasRelatedWork W2024738705 @default.
• W154970997 hasRelatedWork W2039479745 @default.
• W154970997 hasRelatedWork W2054187158 @default.
• W154970997 hasRelatedWork W2076658815 @default.
• W154970997 hasRelatedWork W2081921310 @default.
• W154970997 hasRelatedWork W2090202647 @default.
• W154970997 hasRelatedWork W2092189973 @default.
• W154970997 hasRelatedWork W2112563472 @default.
• W154970997 hasRelatedWork W2147431820 @default.
• W154970997 hasRelatedWork W2159414885 @default.
• W154970997 hasRelatedWork W2164700225 @default.
• W154970997 hasRelatedWork W2175773476 @default.
• W154970997 hasRelatedWork W2564028950 @default.
• W154970997 hasRelatedWork W2762383728 @default.
• W154970997 hasRelatedWork W2895758098 @default.
• W154970997 hasRelatedWork W2935419318 @default.
• W154970997 hasRelatedWork W3147472648 @default.
• W154970997 hasRelatedWork W3183641230 @default.
• W154970997 hasVolume "11" @default.
• W154970997 isParatext "false" @default.
• W154970997 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W154970997 magId "154970997" @default.
• W154970997 workType "article" @default.