Abstract
Five pigeons matched element and compound samples in a symbolic matching-to-sample procedure. In Experiment 1, the sample duration varied within each session, ranging from.125 to 8 sec. Element matching accuracy was superior to compound matching accuracy, and matching accuracy improved with sample duration; but there was no evidence for the convergence of element and compound matching accuracy with long sample durations. In Experiment 2, the sample-to-test delay varied from 0 to 4 sec. The superiority of element matching accuracy over compound matching accuracy did not vary as a function of delay length. These replications of previous failures to find interactions between sample type and temporal parameters in determining matching accuracy place important constraints on explanations of element superiority in pigeon matching-to-sample performance.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Brown, M. F., & Morrison, S. K. (1990). Element and compound matching-to-sample performance in pigeons: The roles of information load and training history. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 16, 185–192.
Cox, J. K., & D’Amato, M. R. (1982). Matching to compound samples by monkeys (Cebus apella): Shared attention or generalization decrement? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 8, 209–225.
Grant, D. S. (1981). Short-term memory in the pigeon. In N. E. Spear & R. R. Miller (Eds.), Information processing in animals: Memory mechanisms (pp. 227–256). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Grant, D. S., & MacDonald, S. E. (1986). Matching to element and compound samples in pigeons: The role of sampling coding. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 12, 160–171.
Lamb, M. R. (1991). Attention in humans and animals: Is there a capacity limitation at the time of encoding? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 17, 45–54.
Lamb, M. R., & Riley, D. A. (1981). Effects of element arrangement on the processing of compound stimuli in pigeons (Columba livid). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 7, 45–58.
Maki, W. S., & Leith, C. R. (1973). Shared attention in pigeons. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 19, 345–349.
Maki, W. S., Jr., Riley, D. A., & Leith, C. R. (1976). The role of test stimuli in matching to compound samples by pigeons. Animal Learning & Behavior, 4, 13–21.
Riley, D. A. (1984). Do pigeons decompose stimulus compounds? In H. L. Roitblat, T. G. Bever, & H. S. Terrace (Eds.), Animal cognition (pp. 333–350). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Riley, D. A., & Leith, C. R. (1976). Multidimensional psychophysics and selective attention in animals. Psychological Bulletin, 83, 138–160.
Roberts, W. A., & Grant, D. S. (1978). Interaction of sample and comparison stimuli in delayed matching-to-sample with the pigeon. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 4, 68–82.
Santi, A., Grossi, V., & Gibson, M. (1982). Differences in matching-to-sample performance with element and compound sample stimuli in pigeons. Learning & Motivation, 13, 240–256.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This work was supported by National Institute of Mental Health Grant MH42646. The author thanks Spencer Morrison for his assistance in conducting the experiments.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Brown, M.F. A search for the locus of information overload in pigeon compound matching-to-sample performance. Bull. Psychon. Soc. 29, 337–340 (1991). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03333937
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03333937