Rapid acquisition of a novelty versus familiarity concept by pigeons (Columba livia).
Rapid acquisition of a novelty versus familiarity concept by pigeons (Columba livia).
复制标题
鸽子（Columba livia）快速获得新奇与熟悉的概念。
DOI：
10.1037/0097-7403.15.3.242
复制
发表时间：
1989
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
S. Reilly
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
E. Macphail;S. Reilly
鸽子进行了连续的辨别任务，对新的幻灯片做出反应会得到奖励，而对以前见过的熟悉的幻灯片做出反应则没有得到奖励。在实验1中，幼稚的学生最初对熟悉的幻灯片反应更快，但所有的学生在几次会议后就学会了对新幻灯片的反应更快。在实验2中，SS立即转移到新的试验序列。实验3表明，延长的保留间隔和插入的幻灯片演示都会损害再认。实验4表明，SS将重复的幻灯片视为熟悉的，并证实SS使用的是“新奇与熟悉”的概念。作者的结论是，鸽子很容易就能得到这样的概念。这篇文章涉及鸽子的识别记忆；它报告了一系列实验，在这些实验中，鸽子必须完全根据做出决定时所显示的刺激的新颖性或熟悉度来决定是否做出反应。所使用的技术类似于Konorski(1959)提出并由Wasserman(1976)实施的连续的样本匹配范式，但在两个方面有所不同：第一，鸽子对刺激的初始呈现做出反应(对应于样本阶段)而得到奖励，而不是对第二个刺激呈现做出反应；第二，始终使用独特的刺激，因此每个刺激作为新的刺激(样本)只出现一次，并且作为熟悉的刺激只出现一次。因为这项任务涉及抑制对刺激的反应，而在之前的暴露中，刺激之后是奖励，所以成功的表现不能可信地归因于加强了涉及特定刺激和啄食反应的联系。以前对鸽子识别记忆的研究表明，鸽子可能会发现很难根据新鲜感和熟悉度来做出反应。例如，MacPhail(1980)发现，在一项任务中，鸽子根据中央键上的刺激是否与最近暴露的两到五个刺激中的任何一个匹配，在两个白色侧键之间做出选择，准确率非常低。格林(1983)发现，尽管鸽子掌握了一项显然需要识别刺激的任务，但实际上鸽子已经学会了区分
Pigeons performed a successive discrimination task in which responding to novel slides was rewarded, and responding to familiar slides, seen once previously, was not rewarded. In Experiment 1, naive Ss initially responded more rapidly to familiar slides, but all Ss learned to respond more rapidly to novel slides within a few sessions. In Experiment 2, Ss transferred immediately to novel trial sequences. Experiment 3 showed that both increased retention intervals and interpolated slide presentations impaired recognition. Experiment 4 showed that Ss treated duplicate slides as familiar and confirmed that Ss were using a "novelty versus familiarity" concept. The authors conclude that such a concept is readily available to pigeons. This article concerns recognition memory in pigeons; it reports a series of experiments in which the birds had to base the decision of whether or not to respond solely on the novelty or familiarity of the stimulus displayed at the time of the decision. The technique that was used resembles the successive matching-to-sample paradigm proposed by Konorski (1959) and implemented by Wasserman (1976), but differs in two respects: First, pigeons are rewarded for responding to the initial presentation of a stimulus (corresponding to the sample phase), and are not rewarded for responding to the second presentation of a stimulus; second, unique stimuli are used throughout, so that each stimulus appears only once as a novel stimulus (the "sample") and only once as a familiar stimulus. Because this task involves withholding responses to stimuli that on prior exposure were followed by reward, successful performance cannot plausibly be ascribed to reinforcement of associations involving specific stimuli and the pecking response. Previous investigations of recognition memory in pigeons suggested that pigeons may find it difficult to base their responding on novelty versus familiarity. Macphail (1980), for example, found very low levels of accuracy on a task in which pigeons made a choice between two white side keys on the basis of whether a stimulus on the center key matched or did not match any of a recently exposed list of from two to five stimuli. Greene (1983) found that although pigeons mastered a task that apparently required the recognition of stimuli, the pigeons had in fact learned to discriminate between