Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior logoLink to Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior
. 1992 Jan;57(1):17–31. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1992.57-17

Sign- versus goal-tracking: effects of conditioned-stimulus-to-unconditioned-stimulus distance.

F J Silva 1, K M Silva 1, J J Pear 1
PMCID: PMC1323066  PMID: 1548447

Abstract

Three pigeons were exposed sequentially across experimental phases to five different distances between the conditioned stimulus and the site of the unconditioned stimulus in a sign-/goal-tracking procedure. A computer-controlled tracking system provided a continuous record of the bird's position by continuously monitoring the location of the bird's head in three-dimensional space. It was found that birds sign-tracked (i.e., approached the conditioned stimulus) when the conditioned stimulus was closest to the site of the unconditioned stimulus, goal-tracked (i.e., approached the site of the unconditioned stimulus in the presence of the conditioned stimulus) when the conditioned stimulus was farthest from the site of the unconditioned stimulus, and engaged in both sign- and goal-tracking (or something intermediate) at intermediate conditioned-stimulus-to-unconditioned-stimulus distances. When both sign- and goal-tracking occurred, the former tended to occur in the first half and the latter in the second half of the interval in which the conditioned stimulus was present. The results suggest (a) whether sign- or goal-tracking (or both) occurs is a function of the distance of the conditioned stimulus from the site of the unconditioned stimulus, (b) the fact that pigeons but not rats have been found to sign-track consistently throughout the duration of the conditioned stimulus may be due to quantitatively rather than qualitatively different effects of conditioned-stimulus-to-unconditioned-stimulus distance across species (i.e., a "short" conditioned-stimulus-to-unconditioned-stimulus distance for a pigeon may be a "long" one for a rat), and (c) sign- and goal-tracking may be competing behavioral tendencies that can (e.g., at intermediate conditioned-stimulus-to-unconditioned-stimulus distances) cancel each other out. The findings lend support to theories that specify an interaction between phylogenetic and reinforcement variables in determining whether sign- or goal-tracking will occur in any given experimental preparation.

Full text

PDF
17

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Alsop B., Davison M. Effects of varying stimulus disparity and the reinforcer ratio in concurrent-schedule and signal-detection procedures. J Exp Anal Behav. 1991 Jul;56(1):67–80. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1991.56-67. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Barrera F. J. Centrifugal selection of signal-directed pecking. J Exp Anal Behav. 1974 Sep;22(2):341–355. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1974.22-341. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Baum W. M. Matching, undermatching, and overmatching in studies of choice. J Exp Anal Behav. 1979 Sep;32(2):269–281. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1979.32-269. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Baum W. M. On two types of deviation from the matching law: bias and undermatching. J Exp Anal Behav. 1974 Jul;22(1):231–242. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1974.22-231. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Cleland G. G., Davey G. C. Autoshaping in the rat: The effects of localizable visual and auditory signals for food. J Exp Anal Behav. 1983 Jul;40(1):47–56. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1983.40-47. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Davey G. C., Oakley D., Cleland G. G. Autoshaping in the rat: Effects of omission on the form of the response. J Exp Anal Behav. 1981 Jul;36(1):75–91. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1981.36-75. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Davison M., Alsop B. Behavior-dependent reinforcer-rate changes in concurrent schedules: A further analysis. J Exp Anal Behav. 1991 Jul;56(1):1–19. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1991.56-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Eldridge G. D., Pear J. J. Topographical variations in behavior during autoshaping, automaintenance, and omission training. J Exp Anal Behav. 1987 May;47(3):319–333. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1987.47-319. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Holland P. C. Differential effects of omission contingencies on various components of Pavlovian appetitive conditioned responding in rats. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 1979 Apr;5(2):178–193. doi: 10.1037//0097-7403.5.2.178. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Holland P. C. Influence of visual conditioned stimulus characteristics on the form of Pavlovian appetitive conditioned responding in rats. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 1980 Jan;6(1):81–97. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Pear J. J. Behavioral stereotypy and the generalized matching equation. J Exp Anal Behav. 1988 Jul;50(1):87–95. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1988.50-87. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Pear J. J., Eldridge G. D. The operant-respondent distinction: Future directions. J Exp Anal Behav. 1984 Nov;42(3):453–467. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1984.42-453. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Pear J. J., Legris J. A. Shaping by automated tracking of an arbitrary operant response. J Exp Anal Behav. 1987 Mar;47(2):241–247. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1987.47-241. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Pear J. J. Spatiotemporal patterns of behavior produced by variable-interval schedules of reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav. 1985 Sep;44(2):217–231. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1985.44-217. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Williams D. R., Williams H. Auto-maintenance in the pigeon: sustained pecking despite contingent non-reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav. 1969 Jul;12(4):511–520. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1969.12-511. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior are provided here courtesy of Society for the Experimental Analysis of Behavior

RESOURCES