Multiple feature use in pigeons’ category discrimination: The influence of stimulus set structure and the salience of stimulus differences.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two experiments investigated what makes it more likely that pigeons' behavior will come under the control of multiple relevant visual stimulus dimensions. Experiment 1 investigated the effect of stimulus set structure, using a conditional discrimination between circles that differed in both hue and diameter. Two training conditions differed in whether hue and diameter were correlated in the same way within positive and negative stimulus sets as between sets. Transfer tests showed that all pigeons came under the control of both dimensions, regardless of stimulus set structure. Experiment 2 investigated the effect of the relative salience of the stimulus differences on three visual dimensions. Pigeons learned a multiple simultaneous discrimination between circular patches of sinusoidal gratings that differed in hue, orientation, and spatial frequency. In initial training, each stimulus only included one positive or negative feature, and the stimulus differences on the three dimensions were adjusted so that the rates of learning about the three dimensions were kept approximately equal. Transfer tests showed that all three dimensions acquired control over behavior, with no single dimension dominating consistently across pigeons. Subsequently the pigeons were trained in a polymorphous category discrimination using all three dimensions, and the level of control by the three dimensions tended to become more equal as polymorphous training continued. We conclude that the salience of the stimulus differences on different dimensions is an important factor in whether pigeons will come under the control of multiple dimensions of visual stimuli. (PsycINFO Database Record
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".