title: "Counting" by pigeons: discrimination of the number of biologically relevant sequential events.
abstract: Numerical competence has been studied in animals under a variety of conditions, but only a few experiments have reported animals' ability to detect absolute number. Capaldi and Miller (1988) tested rats' ability to detect absolute number by using biologically important events--the number of reinforced runs followed by a nonreinforced run--and found that the rats ran significantly slower on the nonreinforced run. In the present experiments, we used a similar procedure. Pigeons were given a sequence of trials in which responding on the first three trials ended in reinforcement but responding on the fourth trial did not (RRRN). When the response requirement on each trial was a single peck (Experiment 1), we found no significant increase in latency to peck on the fourth trial. When the response requirement was increased to 10 pecks (Experiment 2), however, the time to complete the peck requirement was significantly longer on the nonreinforced trial than on the reinforced trials. Tests for control by time, number of responses, and amount of food consumed indicated that the pigeons were using primarily the number of reinforcements obtained in each sequence as a cue for nonreinforcement. This procedure represents a sensitive and efficient method for studying numerical competence in animals.
authors.affiliation: Department of Psychology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky 40506-0044, USA.
authors.forename: Rebecca M
authors.initials: RM
authors.lastname: Rayburn-Reeves
authors.forename: Holly C
authors.initials: HC
authors.lastname: Miller
authors.forename: Thomas R
authors.initials: TR
authors.lastname: Zentall
mesh_terms: D000818:Animals; D001070:Appetitive Behavior; D010856:Columbidae; D004193:Discrimination Learning; D008433:Mathematics; D009042:Motivation; D011340:Problem Solving; D011930:Reaction Time; D012055:Reinforcement Schedule
references.citation: Nat Rev Neurosci. 2005 Mar;6(3):177-90
references.pmid: 15711599
references.citation: J Exp Anal Behav. 1958 Apr;1(2):109-21
references.pmid: 16811206
references.citation: Trends Cogn Sci. 2004 Jul;8(7):307-14
references.pmid: 15242690
references.citation: J Comp Psychol. 2000 Mar;114(1):73-85
references.pmid: 10739313
references.citation: Trends Cogn Sci. 2000 Feb;4(2):59-65
references.pmid: 10652523
references.citation: Anim Cogn. 2009 Jan;12(1):97-105
references.pmid: 18670794
references.citation: J Comp Psychol. 2001 Mar;115(1):83-91
references.pmid: 11334222
references.citation: J Exp Anal Behav. 1999 Sep;72(2):151-75
references.pmid: 10503296
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 1996 Jan;22(1):76-86
references.pmid: 8568498
references.citation: Psychol Sci. 2000 May;11(3):218-22
references.pmid: 11273406
references.citation: Curr Opin Neurobiol. 2006 Apr;16(2):222-9
references.pmid: 16546373
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 2000 Jan;26(1):31-49
references.pmid: 10650542
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 1983 Jul;9(3):320-34
references.pmid: 6886634
references.citation: Learn Behav. 2009 Nov;37(4):365-79
references.pmid: 19815933
references.citation: Science. 1965 Apr 23;148(3669):526-7
references.pmid: 14263777
references.citation: J Comp Physiol Psychol. 1967 Feb;63(1):60-5
references.pmid: 6029721
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 1993 Apr;19(2):149-64
references.pmid: 8505595
references.citation: Cognition. 2005 Oct;97(3):295-313
references.pmid: 16260263
references.citation: Cognition. 1992 Aug;44(1-2):43-74
references.pmid: 1511586
references.citation: J Comp Physiol Psychol. 1970 Nov;73(2):202-7
references.pmid: 5493260
references.citation: Behav Processes. 2002 Apr 28;57(2-3):131-148
references.pmid: 11947994
references.citation: Br J Psychol. 1962 May;53:167-73
references.pmid: 14450182
references.citation: Annu Rev Psychol. 1989;40:155-89
references.pmid: 2648974