Abstract
In the suboptimal-choice task, birds systematically choose the leaner but informative option (suboptimal) over the richer but non-informative option (optimal). The task has two variations. In the standard task, the optimal option includes two terminal link stimuli. In the original task, it includes a single terminal link stimulus. Two models, the temporal information account (Cunningham and Shahan, J Exp Psychol Anim Learn Cogn 44:1–22, 2018) and the ∆-∑ hypothesis (González et al., J Exp Anal Behav 113:591–608, 2020), presuppose that these procedures are equivalent, but no formal comparison is available. Here we test whether or not these procedures are functionally equivalent. One group of pigeons was trained with the standard procedure, another group with the original procedure, and a third group was trained with a hybrid of the other two (i.e., the two options were the optimal links of the standard and original procedures). Our findings indicate that the number of terminal link stimuli in the optimal option is inconsequential vis-à-vis choice. Moreover, our findings also indicate that latencies to respond are a sensitive metric of value and choice. As predicted by the Sequential Choice Model, we were able to predict simultaneous choices from the latencies of sequential choices and observed a substantial shortening of latencies during simultaneous choices.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Alba R, Rodríguez W, Martínez M, Orduña V (2018) Rats’ preferences in the suboptimal choice procedure: evaluating the impact of reinforcement probability and conditioned inhibitors. Behav Proc 157:574–582
Aw J, Vasconcelos M, Kacelnik A (2011) How costs affect preferences: Experiments on state dependence, hedonic state and within-trial contrast in starlings. Anim Behav 81(6):1117–1128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2011.02.015
Aw J, Monteiro T, Vasconcelos M, Kacelnik A (2012) Cognitive mechanisms of risky choice: Is there an evaluation cost? Behav Processes 89(2):95–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2011.09.007
Bateson M, Kacelnik A (1995) Preferences for fixed and variable food sources: variability in amount and delay. J Exp Anal Behav 63(3):313–329
Bateson M, Kacelnik A (1996) Rate currencies and the foraging starling: the fallacy of the averages revisited. Behav Ecol 7(3):341–352. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/7.3.341
Belke TW, Spetch ML (1994) Choice between reliable and unreliable reinforcement alternatives revisited: preference for unreliable reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav 62:353–366
Birnbaum MH, Jou J-W (1990) A theory of comparative response times and “difference” judgments. Cogn Psychol 22(2):184–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(90)90015-V
Bower G, McLean J, Meacham J (1966) Value of knowing when reinforcement is due. J Comp and Physiol Psychol 62(2):184–192. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0023682
Case JP, Zentall TR (2018) Suboptimal choice in pigeons: Does the predictive value of the conditioned reinforcer alone determine choice? Behav Processes 157:320–326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2018.07.018
Catania AC (1975) Freedom and knowledge: an experimental analysis of preference in pigeons. J Exp Anal Behav 24(1):89–106. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1975.24-89
Catania AC, Sagvolden T (1980) Preference for free choice over forced choice in pigeons. J Exp Anal Behav 34(1):77–86. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1980.34-77
Chow JJ, Smith AP, Wilson AG, Zentall TR, Beckmann JS (2017) Suboptimal choice in rats: incentive salience attribution promotes maladaptive decision-making. Behav Brain Res 320:244–254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2016.12.013
Cunningham PJ, Shahan TA (2018) Suboptimal choice, reward-predictive signals, and temporal information. J Exp Psychol Anim Learn Cogn 44(1):1–22. https://doi.org/10.1037/xan0000160
Cunningham PJ, Shahan TA (2019) Rats engage in suboptimal choice when the delay to food is sufficiently long. J Exp Psychol Anim Learn Cogn 45(3):301–310. https://doi.org/10.1037/xan0000211
Dashiell JF (1937) Affective value-distances as a determinant of esthetic judgment-times. Am J Psychol 50(1/4):57–67. https://doi.org/10.2307/1416620
Dunn R, Spetch ML (1990) Choice with uncertain outcomes: conditioned reinforcement effects. J Exp Anal Behav 53(2):201–218. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1990.53-201
Edgington E (1995) Randomization tests, 3rd edn. Marcel Dekker, New York
Fantino E, Abarca N (1985) Choice, optimal foraging, and the delay-reduction hypothesis. Behav Brain Sci 8(2):315–330. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00020847
Fantino E, Dunn R, Meck W (1979) Percentage reinforcement and choice. J Exp Anal Behav 32(3):335–340. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1979.32-335
Fortes I, Vasconcelos M, Machado A (2016) Testing the boundaries of “paradoxical” predictions: pigeons do disregard bad news. J Exp Psychol Anim Learn Cogn 42(4):336–346. https://doi.org/10.1037/xan0000114
Fortes I, Machado A, Vasconcelos M (2017) Do pigeons (Columba livia) use information about the absence of food appropriately? A further look into suboptimal choice. J Comp Psychol 131(4):277–289. https://doi.org/10.1037/com0000079
Fortes I, Pinto C, Machado A, Vasconcelos M (2018) The paradoxical effect of low reward probabilities in suboptimal choice. J Exp Psychol Anim Learn Cogn 44(2):180–193. https://doi.org/10.1037/xan0000165
Freidin E, Aw J, Kacelnik A (2009) Sequential and simultaneous choices: testing the diet selection and sequential choice models. Behav Processes 80(3):218–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2008.12.001
Gipson CD, Alessandri JJD, Miller HC, Zentall TR (2009) Preference for 50% reinforcement over 75% reinforcement by pigeons. Learn Behav 37(4):289–298. https://doi.org/10.3758/lb.37.4.289
González VV, Macías A, Machado A, Vasconcelos M (2020) The ∆-∑ hypothesis: How contrast and reinforcement rate combine to generate sub-optimal choice. J Exp Anal Behav 113(3):591–608. https://doi.org/10.1002/jeab.595
Henri-Bhargava A, Simioni A, Fellows LK (2012) Ventromedial frontal lobe damage disrupts the accuracy, but not the speed, of value-based preference judgments. Neuropsychologia 50(7):1536–1542. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2012.03.006
Kacelnik A, Vasconcelos M, Monteiro T, Aw J (2011) Darwin's "tug-of-war" vs. starlings' "horse-racing": How adaptations for sequential encounters drive simultaneous choice. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 65(3):547–558. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-010-1101-2
Kendall SB (1974) Preference for intermittent reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav 21(3):463–473. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1974.21-463
Killeen PR, Hall SS (2001) The principal components of response strenght. J Exp Anal Behav 75(2):111–134. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.2001.75-111
Kish GB (1966) Studies of sensory reinforcement. In: Honig WK (ed) Operant behavior: areas of research and application. Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York, pp 100–159
Lagorio CH, Hackenberg TD (2012) Risky choice in pigeons: Preference for amount variability using a token-reinforcement system. J Exp Anal Behav 98(2):139–154. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.2012.98-139
Laude JR, Stagner JP, Zentall TR (2014) Suboptimal choice by pigeons may result from the diminishing effect of nonreinforcement. J Exp Psychol Anim Learn Cogn 40(1):12–21. https://doi.org/10.1037/xan0000010
Manly B (2007) Randomization, bootstrap, and Monte Carlo methods in biology, 3rd edn. Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca Raton
Marsh B, Schuck-Paim C, Kacelnik A (2004) Energetic state during learning affects foraging choices in starlings. Behav Ecol 15(3):396–399. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/arh034
Martínez M, Alba R, Rodríguez W, Orduña V (2017) Incentive salience attribution is not the sole determinant of suboptimal choice in rats: conditioned inhibition matters. Behav Processes 142:99–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2017.06.012
Mazur JE (1996) Choice with certain and uncertain reinforcers in an adjusting-delay procedure. J Exp Anal Behav 66:63–73. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1996.66-63
McDevitt MA, Dunn RM, Spetch ML, Ludvig EA (2016) When good news leads to bad choices. J Exp Anal Behav 105(1):23–40. https://doi.org/10.1002/jeab.192
McNamara JM, Trimmer PC, Houston AI (2014) Natural selection can favour ‘irrational’ behaviour. Biol Lett 10(1):20130935. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2013.0935
Monteiro T, Vasconcelos M, Kacelnik A (in press) Choosing fast and simply: construction of preferences by starlings through parallel option valuation. PLOS Biol
Ojeda A, Murphy RA, Kacelnik A (2018) Paradoxical choice in rats: Subjective valuation and mechanism of choice. Behav Processes 152:73–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2018.03.024
Osborne SR (1977) The free food (contrafreeloading) phenomenon: a review and analysis. Anim Learn Behav 5(3):221–235. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03209232
Oud B, Krajbich I, Miller K, Cheong JH, Botvinick M, Fehr E (2016) Irrational time allocation in decision-making. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 283(1822):20151439. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2015.1439
Pachella RG (1974) The interpretation of reaction time in information processing research. In: Kantowitz B (ed) Human information processing: tutorials in performance and cognition. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, pp 41–82
Padoa-Schioppa C, Jandolo L, Visalberghi E (2006) Multi-stage mental process for economic choice in capuchins. Cognition 99(1):B1–B13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2005.04.008
Pompilio L, Kacelnik A (2010) Context-dependent utility overrides absolute memory as a determinant of choice. Proc Natl Acad Sci 107(1):508–512. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0907250107
Pompilio L, Kacelnik A, Behmer ST (2006) State-dependent learned valuation drives choice in an invertebrate. Science 311(5767):1613–1615. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1123924
Prokasy WF Jr (1956) The acquisition of observing responses in the absence of differential external reinforcement. J Comp Physiol Psychol 49(2):131–134. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0046740
Reboreda JC, Kacelnik A (1991) Risk sensitivity in starlings: variability in food amount and food delay. Behav Ecol 2(4):301–308
Robles E, Vargas PA (2007) Functional parameters of delay discounting assessment tasks: order of presentation. Behav Processes 75(2):237–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2007.02.014
Robles E, Roberts NA, Sanabria F (2011) Dynamics of choice during estimation of subjective value. Behav Processes 87(1):34–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2011.01.009
Roper KL, Zentall TR (1999) Observing behavior in pigeons: the effect of reinforcement probability and response cost using a symmetrical choice procedure. Learn Motiv 30(3):201–220. https://doi.org/10.1006/lmot.1999.1030
Schwartz L (2004) The paradox of choice: Why more is less. Harper Collins, New York
Shapiro MS, Siller S, Kacelnik A (2008) Simultaneous and sequential choice as a function of reward delay and magnitude: normative, descriptive and process-based models tested in the European Starling (Sturnus vulgaris). J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Processes 34(1):75–93. https://doi.org/10.1037/0097-7403.34.1.75
Shull RL, Mellon RC, Sharp JA (1990) Delay and number of food reinforcers: effects on choice and latencies. J Exp Anal Behav 53(2):235–246. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1990.53-235
Smith AP, Zentall TR (2016) Suboptimal choice in pigeons: choice is primarily based on the value of the conditioned reinforcer rather than overall reinforcement rate. J Exp Psychol Anim Learn Cogn 42(2):212–220. https://doi.org/10.1037/xan0000092
Spetch ML, Belke TW, Barnet RC, Dunn R, Pierce WD (1990) Suboptimal choice in a percentage-reinforcement procedure: effects of signal condition and terminal-link length. J Exp Anal Behav 53(2):219–234. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1990.53-219
Spetch ML, Mondloch MV, Belke TW, Dunn R (1994) Determinants of pigeons’ choice between certain and probabilistic outcomes. Anim Learn Behav 22(3):239–251. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03209832
Stagner JP, Zentall TR (2010) Suboptimal choice behavior by pigeons. Psychon Bull Rev 17(3):412–116. https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.17.3.412
Stagner JP, Laude JR, Zentall TR (2011) Sub-optimal choice in pigeons does not depend on avoidance of the stimulus associated with the absence of reinforcement. Learn Motiv 42(4):282–287. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lmot.2011.09.001
Stephens DW, Krebs JR (1986) Foraging theory. Princeton University Press, Princeton
Stephens DW, Brown JS, Ydenberg RC (2007) Foraging: behavior and ecology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Trujano RE, Orduña V (2015) Rats are optimal in a choice task in which pigeons are not. Behav Processes 119:22–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2015.07.010
Trujano RE, López P, Rojas-Leguizamón M, Orduña V (2016) Optimal behavior by rats in a choice task is associated to a persistent conditioned inhibition effect. Behav Processes 130:65–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2016.07.005
Vasconcelos M, Urcuioli PJ (2008) Deprivation level and choice in pigeons: a test of within-trial contrast. Learn Behav 36(1):12–18. https://doi.org/10.3758/LB.36.1.12
Vasconcelos M, Monteiro T, Aw J, Kacelnik A (2010) Choice in multi-alternative environments: a trial-by-trial implementation of the Sequential Choice Model. Behav Processes 84(1):435–439. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2009.11.010
Vasconcelos M, Monteiro T, Kacelnik A (2013) Context-dependent preferences in starlings: linking ecology, foraging and choice. PLoS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0064934
Vasconcelos M, Monteiro T, Kacelnik A (2015) Irrational choice and the value of information. Sci Rep 5:13874. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep13874
Vasconcelos M, Fortes I, Kacelnik A (2017) On the structure and role of optimality models in the study of behavior. In: Call J (ed) APA handbook of comparative psychology, vol 2. American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, pp 287–307
Vasconcelos M, Machado A, Pandeirada JNS (2018) Ultimate explanations and suboptimal choice. Behav Processes 152:63–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2018.03.023
Wickelgren WA (1977) Speed-accuracy tradeoff and information processing dynamics. Acta Physiol (Oxf) 41(1):67–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-6918(77)90012-9
Zentall TR (2011) Maladaptive “gambling” by pigeons. Behav Processes 87(1):50–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2010.12.017
Zentall TR (2016) Resolving the paradox of suboptimal choice. J Exp Psychol Anim Learn Cogn 42(1):1–14. https://doi.org/10.1037/xan0000085
Zentall TR, Stagner J (2011) Maladaptive choice behaviour by pigeons: an animal analogue and possible mechanism for gambling (sub-optimal human decision-making behaviour). Proc Biol Sci 278(1709):1203–1208. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2010.1607
Zentall TR, Andrews DM, Case JP (2017) Prior commitment: its effect on suboptimal choice in a gambling-like task. Behav Processes 145:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2017.09.008
Funding
Alejandro Macías was supported by the Mexican National Council for Science and Technology (CONACYT) Doctoral Grant (438354). Valeria V. González was supported by Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (FCT) Doctoral Grant (PD/BD/114368/2016).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
This study was conducted at the Psychology Research Centre (UID/PSI/01,662/2013) of the University of Minho.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Macías, A., González, V.V., Machado, A. et al. The functional equivalence of two variants of the suboptimal choice task: choice proportion and response latency as measures of value. Anim Cogn 24, 85–98 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-020-01418-8
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-020-01418-8