Attention in the pigeon: testing for excitatory and inhibitory control by the weak elements.
Weak parts of a reward cue can excite behavior, yet weak parts of a non-reward cue rarely inhibit it.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Blanchard et al. (1979) worked with pigeons in a lab. They wanted to know if weak parts of a cue could control behavior.
The birds saw two mixed lights. One mix meant food (S+). The other meant no food (S-). Each mix had a bright color and a dim color. The dim color was the 'weak element.'
What they found
The pigeons pecked more when the weak dim color came from the food mix. That shows excitatory control.
But the dim color from the no-food mix did not stop pecking. No inhibitory control showed up.
The team ran the test twice. Both times the results were the same.
How this fits with other research
CHUNG (1965) already showed pigeons can learn cues even when food is delayed. B et al. go further: even weak parts of the cue gain some power.
Huguenin (2000) later tested kids with severe ID on a computer. Long training helped them notice all parts of a picture. That extends the pigeon work to humans and gives hope for overselectivity in autism.
McGrother et al. (1996) saw pigeons discriminate drug states without direct training. Both studies reveal control can pop up in odd ways, but B et al. used clear S+/S- steps while W et al. relied on simple pairing.
Why it matters
When you build compound cues for learners, do not assume every part will work both ways. A weak 'yes' signal may gain strength, but a weak 'no' signal may not block behavior. Test each element. If a child only tunes in to one feature of a picture or instruction, try longer single-feature drills first, as Huguenin (2000) did. Then check that the unused parts truly signal 'stop.'
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Probe each part of your compound stimulus—make sure 'no' signals actually cut responding.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
In two experiments, pigeons were trained on a successive discrimination between a color and either a compound S+ or a compound S- consisting of a form superimposed on a second color. Two stimulus control tests followed discrimination training: an attention test in which the form and colors used in training were presented singly and in combination, and then a resistance-to-reinforcement test using the form element of S+ or S- and a novel form. In the attention test, the birds trained with a compound S+ responded most to the S+ compound, less to the S+ color alone, and still less to the S+ form on a dark key. Few responses were made to the negative stimulus, either alone or with the S+ form added. The birds trained with a compound S- pecked most at the S+ color and to a compound of the S+ color with the S- form added. The resistance-to-reinforcement test showed that the birds trained with a compound S+ responded more to the S+ form than to a novel form. However, the birds trained with a compound S- did not reliably respond more to a novel form than to the S- form. These findings suggested that the form element of a compound S+ gains some excitatory control, but the form element of a compound S- does not acquire inhibitory control. The possibility existed that low levels of responding to the S+ form on a dark background in the first experiment were due to use of a darkened key to separate S+ and S- periods during discrimination training. However, the essential findings were the same in a second experiment in which darkening of the chamber separated S+ and S- periods.
Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 1979 · doi:10.1901/jeab.1979.31-421