ArticleJournal of experimental psychology. Animal learning and cognition2017
Serial pattern learning in pigeons: Rule-based or associative?
Article in Journal of experimental psychology. Animal learning and cognition, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Abstract rule learning and generalization in human and nonhuman primates.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Evidence for object-place binding in pigeons in a sequence-learning procedure.Learning & behavior · 2022Article
- Self-esteem depends on beliefs about the rate of change of social approval.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Simplicity From Complexity in Vertebrate Behavior: Macphail () Revisited.Frontiers in psychology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Extensive research has documented evidence for rule learning in sequential behavior tasks in both rats and humans. We adapted the 2-choice serial multiple choice (SMC) task developed for use with rats (Fountain & Rowan, 1995a) to study sequence behavior in pigeons. Pigeons were presented with 8 disks arranged in a circular array on a touchscreen, and pecking to an illuminated disk could lead to reward. Correct responding consisted of serial patterns involving "run" chunks of 3 elements (123 234, etc.). Some pigeons experienced a violation of the chunk rule in the final chunk. Unlike rats, pigeons made fewer errors on violation chunks than run chunks, suggesting the use of low-level cues to guide choices. Removal of low-level cues and increasing the number of simultaneously illuminated disks to an 8-choice SMC task resulted in more errors on the violation chunk. Pigeons were able to use the rule when the array of disks was contracted or expanded, and when chunk length was extended to 4 and 5 elements, but not when disks were removed from or added to the array. Pigeons were also able to abstract structure from a "trill" pattern (121 232 etc.), as shown by high error rates on a violation trial. These results suggest that pigeons, like rats and humans, can abstract sequence structure, but do so primarily in the absence of specific low-level feature-based information. (PsycINFO Database Record
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.