1 / 47

One reason decision-making in pigeons (and humans)

International Association for Research in Economic Psychology and Society for the Advancement of Behavioral Economics Rome Conference 2008. One reason decision-making in pigeons (and humans). Stephen E. G. Lea,

ikia
Download Presentation

One reason decision-making in pigeons (and humans)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. International Association for Research in Economic Psychology and Society for the Advancement of Behavioral Economics Rome Conference 2008 One reason decision-making in pigeons (and humans) Stephen E. G. Lea, Catriona M. E. Ryan, Catherine Bryant, Louise Millar, Lisa A. Leaver and Andy J. Wills School of Psychology

  2. With thanks to: • European Union Framework Programme 6 grant no. 516542 (NEST), “From Associations to Rules in the Development of Concepts” (FAR) • Tom Zentall, Gerd Gigerenzer, and colleagues elsewhere in the FAR network for discussion IAREP/SABE Rome meeting

  3. Background • Gigerenzer et al argue that using a single dimension is often a more efficient way of dealing with a multidimensional problem than an “optimal” regression equation approach: “one reason decision making” • Non-humans should need to use such cognitive short-cuts even more than humans do (e.g. Bateson has applied Gigerenzer’s approach to mate choice) • But in categorization experiments, control by a single dimension when many are available is often taken as a sign of the use of a rule (available only to humans) rather than associative learning (available to all vertebrates) • Some pigeon categorization data suggest that control by a minority of dimensions may be normal for non-humans IAREP/SABE Rome meeting

  4. Research plan Questions: Could birds’ “failure” to use all the information available in categorization represent an adaptive, efficient strategy? How does birds’ performance differ from that of humans, who can presumably use rules? Experiments: Vary cue salience and validity between dimensions, and compare pigeons with humans, under closely similar procedures IAREP/SABE Rome meeting

  5. Testing apparatus touchscreen feeders IAREP/SABE Rome meeting

  6. Discrimination procedure Pigeons • Go-left/Go-right discrimination between two white-on-black multi dimensional stimuli, with dimensions spatially separated; • Food reward at separate feeders for left and right responses (differential outcomes) • Choice key responses reinforced on FI schedule, forcing 10-12s exposure to stimulus on each trial • Pecks to wrong choice key have no scheduled consequences – so reward available on all trials • 80 trials per session, trials start with observing key peck Students • Reward by feedback stimulus linked to pay IAREP/SABE Rome meeting

  7. bar A B doughnut lozenge Experiments 1a, 1b, 2: Stimuli • Four dimensions, with elements arranged in a square • All dimensions 100% valid • Only the perfect exemplars were used in training, so all dimensions were redundant with one another chequer IAREP/SABE Rome meeting

  8. Conditions • Phases 1 & 2: Early pecks to the choice key do not bring reinforcement forward in time • Prototype: Entire stimulus appears immediately at start of trial • Wait to Reveal:Elements of stimulus appear cumulatively, one at a time in random order, at 2.5s intervals, and first peck to either choice key stops any more elements appearing • Test: Modified stimulus (e.g. anomalous elements included) used, and reinforcement given regardless of choice made • Phase 3: Early pecks to the choice key result in (almost) immediate reinforcement if correct (not reported here) • Phase 6: Bird canchoose which dimensions to reveal. IAREP/SABE Rome meeting

  9. Prototype A stimulus display with choice keys IAREP/SABE Rome meeting

  10. Expt 1a: Design • 3 birds trained A-left, B-right, 3 with the reverse • All birds receive 2 sessions of Prototype training, 1 of Reveal training, and so on for 40 sessions • One bird slow to learn so given an extra 4 session cycles • Analyses of final performance based on last 5 3-session cycles • Performance assessed by first choice key pecked – used to score ‘hit’ if on correct side or ‘miss’ if on incorrect side. IAREP/SABE Rome meeting

  11. Phase 1: Stimulus information available at time of first choice peck (final 5 reveal sessions) 1 0.75 bar probability of availability doughnut 0.5 lozenge chequer 0.25 0 bb cm gy hk ma wv bird Wait to Reveal: No consistent tendency to postpone choice until particular elements have been revealed, either between or within birds IAREP/SABE Rome meeting

  12. *P<0.05 for improvement in accuracy if this dimension is present However, stimulus elements differ, fairly consistently across birds, in their impact on response accuracy in Wait to Reveal sessions IAREP/SABE Rome meeting

  13. Phase 2: “One-away” trials • In training, all dimensions co-vary exactly • Test trials use stimuli in which one dimension gives anomalous information relative to the other 3 • Reinforcement regardless of response • Can assess how many test trial responses (out of max 48) consistent with sorting by: • Family Resemblance (or Overall Similarity): response based on majority of dimensions • Each Single Dimension (UniDimensional sorts) IAREP/SABE Rome meeting

  14. One-away trial results Trials/48 predicted by: Agreement between birds as to which single dimension predicts best: Kendall W = 0.47, P=0.03 (FR not part of this analysis) IAREP/SABE Rome meeting

  15. Phase 1 *P<0.05 for improvement in accuracy if this dimension is present Phase 2 1-away trials Predicted by : UD Chex UD Donut UD Donut UD Donut UD Donut FR Linking Phase 1 and Phase 2 IAREP/SABE Rome meeting

  16. Conclusions from Expt 1a • Substantial control by multiple features • Control in conflict tests (1-away trials) appears to be by same features that have most influence on accuracy in incomplete stimulus tests (Wait to Reveal conditions in acquisition) • But still no evidence of selective exposure to most useful dimensions IAREP/SABE Rome meeting

  17. Expt 1b: Design • Pigeon stage 1 (Prototype and Wait to Reveal trials) and Stage 2 (Conflict / 1-away trials) combined into 1 human session. • Stage 1 – Wait to Reveal : • cycles of 2 prototype trials followed by 1 reveal trial. • 40 trials per segment. Criterion – 80% correct. Up to 3 segments to reach criterion • Stage 2 – 1-aways : • 60 prototype trials and 20 1-away test trials • 10 humans trained and tested A-left, B-right, 10 with the reverse; 2 failed to reach criterion IAREP/SABE Rome meeting

  18. Phase 2 Strategy : UD sort on BAR UD sort on CHEX UD sort on CHEX UD sort on BAR Some humans do what we’d expect IAREP/SABE Rome meeting

  19. FR sort UD sort Lozenge UD sort Lozenge FR sort UD sort BAR UD sort Donut Some don’t Phase 2 Strategy IAREP/SABE Rome meeting

  20. Humans’ sorting strategies Sort strategy used in phase 2 : • Of the 14 UD humans, 4 appear to use a ‘Gigerenzer’ strategy across the session. These 4 people focused strongly on 1 dimension, and they tended make a choice decision when this element was revealed, and not before. • The other 10 humans who did do a clean uni-dimensional sort in phase 2 didn’t wait selectively for that dimension in phase 1 – in some sense similar to the pigeons! IAREP/SABE Rome meeting

  21. 1 4 3 2 Experiment 2 – “Choose to Reveal” method • Pigeons only • At start of trial, bird saw 4 white discs in place of the 4 dimensions of the stimulus • When the bird pecked a disc it disappeared and was replaced by the appropriate dimension • The bird could thus choose the order in which the dimensions were revealed • Procedure otherwise as in Wait to Reveal • Each bird had 20 sessions IAREP/SABE Rome meeting

  22. Expt 2: Dimensions chosen first • All birds consistently tended to choose certain dimensions first IAREP/SABE Rome meeting

  23. Experiment 2: Salience • As in Phase 1, there are consistent differences in the impact of the availability of different dimensions on response accuracy IAREP/SABE Rome meeting

  24. Relating dimension choice with dimension salience • 3 birds (bb,gy and wv) selectively chose dimensions which significantly improved their accuracy, • The remaining 2 birds chose dimensions which did not improve their accuracy. The overall performance of these birds correspondingly declined IAREP/SABE Rome meeting

  25. Conclusions from Expt 2 • Birds do consistently choose one dimension in preference to the others…. • …and this is sometimes, but not always, the one most useful to them. • There is thus some evidence that birds will select the most useful information if they can control the order in which the stimulus dimensions are revealed, but not if they have to wait for it to be revealed passively. IAREP/SABE Rome meeting

  26. Conclusions from Expts 1a, 1b & 2 • Pigeons did not show 1-reason decision making in the Gigerenzer sense: • Some cues did control behaviour more than others, despite their being redundant with one another, as in previous experiments • But the birds did not selectively delay their choice response until the most useful information was available • But when they could choose what information to see first, some of the birds did choose the most useful information • Some humans do show selective waiting for the information they are actually using... • ...but others behave quite like pigeons IAREP/SABE Rome meeting

  27. Experiment 3: Manipulating dimension validity • So far all the dimensions have been 100% valid – so all equally usable (though in practice pigeons do not use them equally) • What happens if we assign different predictive values to each dimension? • Specifically, if only one of the dimensions reliably indicates the correct response, will either humans or birds detect it? IAREP/SABE Rome meeting

  28. Experiment 3a, 3b Design • Used 3 dimensions instead of 4 (discarded lozenge, because little evidence of use), • Each dimension had a different predictive value: • One was 100% predictive, i.e. its presence always signalled the correct side for the bird to respond, • One was 75% predictive, i.e. the bird was reinforced for responding on one side on 75% of trials and the other on the remaining 25%, • One had no predictive value, i.e. the bird was reinforced for responding on one side in 50% of trials and the other for the remaining 50%. IAREP/SABE Rome meeting

  29. Experiment 3a Design details Phase 1 : • Birds trained as in phase 1 of the previous experiment (in cycles where 2 sessions using the whole stimulus were followed by one Wait to Reveal session) • 6 naïve birds were used, in 3 groups of 2 birds (differing by assignment of dimensions to validities), one bird in each pair trained A-left, the other B-left. • Each bird given a total of 55 sessions (18 cycles + 1 Prototype to finish) Phase 2: • Choose to Reveal conditions as in Experiment 2 IAREP/SABE Rome meeting

  30. Bar 75% Donut 50% Chex 100% Bar 100% Donut 75% Chex 50% Bar 50% Donut 100% Chex 75% Wait to Reveal: Still no evidence of waiting for most valuable information IAREP/SABE Rome meeting

  31. impact of stimulus dimensions on response accuracy 2 1.5 bar 50% bar 75% donut 100% donut 50% chex 75% bar 100% bar chex 100% 1 donut 75% doughnut chex 50% correct response log improvement in odds ratio for checks 0.5 session cycle 0 mb sf tt sn rg fc -0.5 bird Predictive value of dimensions not always learned, especially if they conflicted with ‘attractiveness’ of dimension IAREP/SABE Rome meeting

  32. 1 2 3 Choose to Reveal (Phase 2): First zone pecked IAREP/SABE Rome meeting

  33. Impact of dimensions on accuracy Even if they did not choose to peck the 100% dimension first, “chex” and “donut” birds’ accuracy was strongly affected by it IAREP/SABE Rome meeting

  34. Impact of stimulus dimensions on response accuracy, final 5 reveal sessions of Phase 1 bar * doughnut 2 * * * * lozenge 1.5 * chequers 1 log improvement in odds ratio for correct * * * response * session cycle * 0.5 * 0 bb cm gy hk ma wv -0.5 bird impact of stimulus dimensions on response accuracy 2 1.5 bar 50% bar 75% donut 100% donut 50% chex 75% bar 100% bar chex 100% 1 donut 75% doughnut chex 50% correct response log improvement in odds ratio for checks 0.5 session cycle 0 mb sf tt sn rg fc -0.5 bird Comparing the pigeon experiments Expt 1a: No weighting of dimensions (all at 100%) • Tendency across birds for Donut to have most impact on accuracy Expt 3a: Dimensions weighted • Accuracy for Birds in Donut and Chex groups impacted by relevant (100%) dimension IAREP/SABE Rome meeting

  35. Expt 3a conclusions If one dimension is made 100% predictive, pigeons will: • Come under control of it, provided that less valid dimensions are not too salient – but the process is slow • Choose to expose themselves to it (3/6 birds) But they will not: • wait selectively for it to be revealed passively Now back again to the humans… IAREP/SABE Rome meeting

  36. Methods – Expt 3b • Pigeons’ Phase 1 (Prototype and Wait to Reveal) and Phase 2 (Choose to Reveal) combined in one session. • Phase 1 : • cycles of 2 Prototype trials then 1 Wait to Reveal trial. • 48 trials per block – had to reach criterion of 80% • Phase 2 : • stimulus elements obscured by white discs in every trial. Tap to remove the disc and reveal the element. • 48 trials, also had to maintain 80% criterion • 30 humans tested, split between 3 groups (each group had a different dimension 100% predictive) • Results shown only for those humans (20/30) who reached criterion IAREP/SABE Rome meeting

  37. 100 90 80 70 60 % reveal trials bar 50 donu 40 chex 30 20 10 0 2 4 7 8 16 19 6 12 13 9 11 18 1 3 5 14 10 15 17 20 subject Humans who had a clear tendency to wait for 100% dimension : 1/6 3/6 (and two weak cases) 5/8 = 9/20 Phase 1 Human – information available when choice made Subjects grouped by 100% valid dimension: IAREP/SABE Rome meeting

  38. 1 2 3 Humans who had a clear tendency to choose for 100% dimension first: Humans who had a clear tendency to choose for 100% dimension first: 6/8 = 15/20 6/6 3/6 OR – had a strategy of hitting 1…2…3 Phase 2 - Humans – first zone chosen IAREP/SABE Rome meeting

  39. Expt 3b conclusions If one dimension is made 100% predictive, humans will: • Mostly come under control of it – but a surprising number (1/3 of those tested) of humans failed to get to criterion in Phase 1. Some got ‘caught’ by the 75% predictive dimension. Others were just ‘dazed and confused’. • Remaining conclusions apply to those who got to 80% criterion, who must have picked up on the 100% dimension (75% cue does not give enough info) • In most but not all cases choose to expose themselves to it first (15/20 of those who reached criterion) • In some cases wait selectively for it to be revealed passively (only 9/20) IAREP/SABE Rome meeting

  40. Finally: Associations and Rules • Humans are not like pigeons, but they are more like pigeons than you might think • Do humans or pigeons use rules in this sort of task? To answer this we need to know what a rule would look like for a non-verbal animal: we suggest a rule should be transferable between situations • Neither pigeons nor humans are very good at transferring “rules” that govern sorting into waiting situations – no pigeons and fewer than half the humans did this • But both are better at using their sorting “rules” to choose what information to see • Question for further research: How much of this could be predicted by an associative model? IAREP/SABE Rome meeting

  41. Thanks! Questions?

  42. correct first choice as a function of session cycle and training condition 1 0.75 Prototype proportion correct 0.5 Reveal 0.25 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 session cycle Expt A Pigeons, Acquisition • Relatively slow learning: 17-38 sessions before 80% accuracy achieved • Once learning is evident, performance consistently worse on Reveal sessions than Prototype sessions Condition: F(1,5)=17.32** Condition x Session cycle F(12,59)=2.27* IAREP/SABE Rome meeting

  43. Number of elements revealed 4 3 Mean elements revealed/trial 2 mean and 1 range 0 1 4 7 10 13 Session cycle Number of elements revealed (max 4) increasesgradually across sessions, from <2 in early sessions to a mean of ~2.5 Session cycle F(12,59.3)=4.77** IAREP/SABE Rome meeting

  44. Trials with more reveals give more accurate performance Note that performance when 4 elements are revealed is as good as in prototype conditions (when all 4 are available throughout) IAREP/SABE Rome meeting

  45. Allowing early choice to bring early reward IAREP/SABE Rome meeting

  46. Additional Phase 3 results • Reduction in accuracy under Reveal conditions compared with Phase 1. • Accuracy for low numbers of elements greater than Phase 1 • Still no selective exposure to more useful information • How else to look at this? Up to now, the birds had no control over the order of presentation of each dimension in Reveal sessions. What happens if we give them this control? IAREP/SABE Rome meeting

  47. 80 Expt A acquisition 70 60 50 Expt B acquisition proto mean % correct 40 reveal 30 20 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 session cycle Results: Acquisition • Even slower than in Expt A. • Again, all tended to perform worse on reveal sessions (this was very marked in one bird) IAREP/SABE Rome meeting

More Related