Pigeons’ spatial memory: V. Proactive interference in the delayed matching of key location paradigm occurs only under restricted conditions |
| |
| Authors: | Donald M Wilkie |
| |
| Institution: | 1. Psychology Department, The University of British Columbia, V6T 1Y7, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
|
| |
| Abstract: | In the delayed matching of key location procedure, pigeons must remember the location of the sample key in order to choose correctly between two comparison keys. The deleterious effect of short intertrial intervals on key location matching found in previous studies suggested that pigeons’ short-term spatial memory is affected by proactive interference. However, because a reward expectancy mechanism may account for the intertriai interval effect, additional research aimed at demonstrating proactive interference was warranted. In Experiment 1, matching accuracy did not decline from early to late trials within a session, a finding inconsistent with a proactive interference effect. In Experiment 2, evidence suggestive of proactive interference was found: Matching was more accurate when the locations that served as distractors and as samples were chosen from different sets. However, this effect could have been due to differences in task difficulty, and the results of the two subsequent experiments provided no evidence of proactive interference. In Experiment 3, the distractor on Trialn was either the location that had served as the sample on Trialn ? 1 or one that had been a sample on earlier trials. Matching accuracy was not inferior on the former type of trial. In Experiment 4, the stimuli that served as samples and distractors were taken from sets containing 2, 3, 5, or 9 locations. Matching accuracy was no worse, actually slightly better, with smaller memory set sizes. Overall, these findings suggested that pigeons’ memory for spatial location may be immune to proactive interference. However, when, in Experiment 5, an intratrial manipulation was used, clear evidence of proactive interference was found: Matching accuracy was considerably lower when the sample was preceded by the distractor for that trial than when it was preceded by the sample or by nothing. Possible reasons why interference was produced by intratrial but not intertrial manipulations are discussed, as are implications of these data for models of pigeons’ short-term spatial memory. |
| |
| Keywords: | |
| 本文献已被 SpringerLink 等数据库收录！ |
|
