Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37335435›Full record

ArticleAnimal cognition2023

Learning and organization of within-session sequences by pigeons (Columba livia).

Muhammad A J Qadri, Robert G Cook

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Animal cognition, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Muhammad A J QadriDepartment of Psychology, College of the Holy Cross, Worcester, MA, USA. mqadri@holycross.edu.
Robert G CookDepartment of Psychology, Tufts University, Medford, MA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Most animals engage in complex activities that are the combination of simpler actions expressed over a period of time. The mechanisms organizing such sequential behavior have been of long-standing biological and psychological interest. Previously, we observed pigeons' anticipatory behavior with a within-session sequence involving four choice alternatives suggestive of a potential understanding of the overall order and sequence of the items within a session. In that task, each colored alternative was correct for 24 consecutive trials as presented in a predictable sequence (i.e., A first, then B, then C, then D). To test whether these four already-trained pigeons possessed a sequential and linked representation of the ABCD items, we added a second four-item sequence involving new and distinct colored choice alternatives (i.e., E first for 24 trials, then F, then G, then H) and then alternated these ABCD and EFGH sequences over successive sessions. Over three manipulations, we tested and trained trials composed of combinations of elements from both sequences. We determined that pigeons did not learn any within-sequence associations among the elements. Despite the availability and explicit utility of such sequence cues, the data suggest instead that pigeons learned the discrimination tasks as a series of temporal associations among independent elements. This absence of any sequential linkage is consistent with the hypothesis that such representations are difficult to form in pigeons. This pattern of data suggests that for repeated sequential activities in birds, and potentially other animals including humans, there are highly effective, but underappreciated, clock-like mechanisms that control the ordering of behaviors.

Indexed as

ColumbidaeLearningAnimalsCuesDiscrimination LearningHumansAnticipationPigeonSequence learningTemporal organization

Identifiers

PMID37335435

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.