EFFECTS OF OVERTRAINING ON SHIFT LEARNING IN MATCHING (OR NONMATCHING)-TO-SAMPLE DISCRIMINATION IN RATS. ESHO NAKAGAWA Kagawa University

The Psychological Record, 2001, 51, 473-493 EFFECTS OF OVERTRAINING ON SHIFT LEARNING IN MATCHING (OR NONMATCHING)-TO-SAMPLE DISCRIMINATION IN RATS ESHO NAKAGAWA Kagawa University Two experiments examined effects of overtraining on shift learning in a matching (or nonmatching) discrimination. In Experiment 1, rats were trained with either a matching or nonmatching discrimination to criterion, or were overtrained, and then transferred to either nonshift (i.e., matching to matching or nonmatching to nonmatching with new stimuli but same rule: MM and NN), shift-1 (i.e., matching to nonmatching or nonmatching to matching with same stimuli but new rule: MN-1 and NM-1), or shift- 2 (i.e., matching to nonmatching or nonmatching to matching with both new stimuli and new rule: MN-2 and NM-2). Group MN-2 learned the shift faster than Group NN, whereas Group MM learned the shift faster than Group NM-2 after criterion training, but this difference failed to reach significance. By contrast, Group MM learned the shift faster than Group NM-2, and Group NN learned the shift faster than Group MN-2 after overtraining. In Experiment 2 rats were overtrained with either a 1-s delayed matching or nonmatching discrimination, and then transferred to nonshift (MM and NN) or shift (MN and NM). Group MM learned the shift faster than Group NM, and Group NN learned the shift faster than Group MN. These findings indicate that overtraining results in symmetry of transfer effect in both a simultaneous and a 1-s delayed matching (nonmatching) discrimination. There are many studies on stimulus class formation in both pigeons and rats. They make it clear that pigeons and rats treat stimuli as equivalent if they signal the same outcome in either matching- (or nonmatching)-to-sample discriminations (Aggleton, 1985; Lombardi, Fachinelli, & Delius, 1984; Mumby, Pinel, & Wood, 1990; Nakagawa, 1992b, 1993a, 1993b, 1999b, 2000a, 2000b; Rothblat & Hayes, 1987; Urcuioli, 1977; Urcuioli & Nevin, 1975; Urcuioli, Zentall, Jackson-Smith, & Steirn, 1989; Vaughan, 1988; Wilson, Mackintosh, Boakes, 1985; Zentall & Hogan, 1974, 1975, 1976; Zentall, Sherburne, Steirn, Randall, Roper, Requests for reprints should be sent to Esho Nakagawa, Department of Psychology, Kagawa University, 1-1 Saiwai-Cho, Takamatsu, Kagawa, 760-8522, Japan. (E-mail: esho@ed.kagawa-u.ac.jp)

474 NAKAGAWA & Urcuioli, 1992; Zentall, Steirn, Sherburne, & Urcuioli, 1991), or concurrent discriminations (Deli us, Ameling, Lea, & Staddon, 1995; Dube, Callahan, & Mcllvane, 1993; Nakagawa, 1978, 1986, 1992a, 1998, 1999a, 1999b, 1999c, 1999d, 2000c, 2001), or same/different discriminations (Edwards, Jagielo, & Zentall, 1983; Fetterman, 1991; Nakagawa, 1993a, 2000b; Santiago & Wright, 1984; Wright, Santiago, Sands, Kendrick, & Cook, 1985; Wright, Santiago, Urcuioli, & Sands, 1983). A serious problem, however, arises in studies using a shift-nonshift paradigm in a matching- (or nonmatching)-to-sample discrimination. Wilson et al. (1985) found an asymmetry of transfer effect in a matching (or nonmatching)-to-sample discrimination in pigeons. In the experiment of Wilson et ai., some pigeons were trained with a matching-to-sample discrimination and others were trained with a nonmatching-to-sample discrimination using a pair of stimuli (i.e., blue and green). They then were transferred to a new pair of stimuli (i.e., red and yellow), either with the same rule holding as in the first problem (i.e., nonshift) or with the opposite (i.e., shift). The pigeons transferred from a matching-to-sample discrimination to a matching-to-sample discrimination learned their shift problem faster than those shifted from a nonmatching-to-sample discrimination to a matching-to-sample discrimination. By contrast, there was no comparable superiority of the pigeons transferred from a nonmatching-to-sample discrimination to a nonmatching-to-sample discrimination to those shifted from a matching-to-sample discrimination to a nonmatching-to-sample discrimination. The results suggest that the rate of shift learning between shifted animals and nonshifted ones depends on whether they are tested with matching-to-sample or nonmatching-to-sample discriminations. That is, Wilson et al. (1985) has found the asymmetry of transfer effect in pigeons. They have claimed that the cause of this transfer effect seems likely to be related to inherent bias toward the odd stimulus that occurs in both Phase 1 training and Phase 2 shift. Nakagawa (1992b, 1992c, 1993a) has also confirmed the asymmetry of transfer effect in both rats and kindergarten children. The asymmetry of transfer effect throws some doubt on Zentall and Hogan's interpretation of their results (1974, 1975, 1976), in which they interpreted the superiority of nonshifted pigeons to the shifted ones in performance on shift tasks as evidence demonstrating that pigeons acquired a relational concept. Alternatively, Nakagawa (1992c) has found the asymmetry of transfer effect in kindergarten children after criterion training, but not after overtraining, in which nonshifted kindergarten children learned their shift task more rapidly than did shifted ones in either the case that they were tested on a matching-to-sample task or nonmatching-to-sample one. The findings have suggested that the asymmetry of transfer effect seems likely to be related to magnitude of preshift training. Findings of Nakagawa (1992c) suggest that there are two causes occurring in the asymmetry of transfer effect in pigeons and rats: One is animals' inherent bias toward the old stimulus presented in both the

EFFECTS OF OVERTRAINING ON SHIFT 475 training and shift phases; the other is degree of additional preshift training (i.e., overtraining). Which is a determinant factor of the asymmetry of transfer effect, either animal's inherent bias toward the odd stimulus or degree of overtraining? This issue is very important in identifying a mechanism of stimulus classes formation in pigeons and rats. However, there are no studies to investigate the question of which is a critical factor of the asymmetry of transfer effect, either inherent bias toward the odd stimulus or degree of overtraining. This problem has received far too little experimental attention in matching-to-sample or nonmatching-to-sample discriminations. The present experiments were conducted to investigate the question of whether or not overtraining produced the symmetry of transfer effect that nonshifted animals always learned their shift problem more rapidly than did shifted ones. Experiment 1 The present experiment was conducted to examine effects of overtraining on shift learning in matching- or nonmatching-to-sample discriminations. Rats were trained with either a matching-to-sample or nonmatching-to-sample discrimination to criterion, or were overtrained. After completing Phase 1 training, they were transferred to either a nonshift condition (i.e., either from matching to matching or nonmatching to nonmatching with new stimuli but same rule: MM or NN), a shift-1 condition (i.e., matching to nonmatching or nonmatching to matching with same stimuli but new rule: MN-1 or NM-1), or a shift-2 condition (i.e., matching to non matching or non matching to matching with both new stimuli and new rule: MN-2 or NM-2). Under a nonshift condition (i.e., MM or NN), the rule resolving a shift problem was the same as in Phase 1 training but the pair of stimuli was different from ones in Phase 1 training. Under a shift-1 condition (i.e., MN-1 or NM-1), the rule resolving a shift problem was different from one in Phase 1 training but the pair of stimuli was the same as in Phase 1 training. Under a shift-2 condition (i.e., MN- 2 or NM-2), the rule resolving a shift problem was different from one in Phase 1 training and the pair of stimuli was different from ones in Phase 1 training. If the asymmetry of transfer effect would be caused by a lack of overtraining, it would be possible that the animals transferred to the nonshift problem (i.e., MM or NN) should learn their shift task more slowly than did the ones transferred to the shift-2 problem (i.e., MN-2 or NM-2) according to tasks given in Phase 2 shift after criterion training. By contrast, the animals transferred to the nonshift problem (i.e., MM or NN) should always learn their shift problem faster than the ones transferred to the shift-2 problem (i.e., MN-2 or NM-2) regardless of tasks given in Phase 2 shift after overtraining. Alternatively, if the asymmetry of transfer effect would be caused by the animals' inherent bias toward the odd stimulus as advocated by Wilson et al. (1985), the asymmetry of transfer effect should be observed after both criterion training and overtraining.

476 NAKAGAWA Method Subjects Ninety-six experimentally naive male Sprague-Dawley rats were used. They were about 240 days old, with an initial average body weight of 510 g. Animals were handled for 5 min a day for 8 days, and were maintained on a daily 2-hr feeding schedule prior to the experiment. The amount of food in the daily ration was gradually reduced until the body weight of each animal reached 80% of the baseline weight at the start of experiment. Water was always available for the animals in their individual home cages. Animals were maintained on a 1 0:14-hr lightdark cycle, with light off at 6:00 a.m. The experimental session took place during the light phase of the cycle. Apparatus A three-stimulus-presentation Hype jumping stand was used (Figure 1; see Nakagawa, 1992b). The apparatus consisted of a runway (15 cm high, 12 cm wide, and 25 em long) with a start box (15 em high, 12 em wide, and. GD Figure 1. The three-stimulus-presentation T-type jumping stand used in Experiment 1 (Unit: centimeters) (CB = center box; C8 = comparison stimulus; G = gap; GB = goal box; GO = guillotine door; PF = platform; RW = runway; 8B = start box; 88 = sample stimulus; T = terrace). ss

EFFECTS OF OVERTRAINING ON SHIFT 477 20 cm long), two goal boxes (15 cm high, 20 cm wide, and 25 cm long) and a center box (15 cm high, 20 cm wide, and 25 cm long). A guillotine door was located 20 cm from the front of the start box. Pieces of cardboard, each 12 cm square, were placed at the entrance of the goal boxes and a center box, 15 cm from the floor, and 5 cm apart from edge to edge. A jumping stand (platform) measured 54 cm wide and 12 cm long. A gap over which animals had to jump (15 cm deep, 56 cm wide, and 15 cm long) was located 20 cm from the front of a goal box. The apparatus was painted medium gray inside and lit throughout the experiment by a 1 O-W fluorescent lamp suspended 40 cm above the top of the center of the apparatus. Stimuli Stimulus cards were 12-cm squares of cardboard. A sample stimulus was presented at the entrance of the center box. A comparison stimulus was presented at the entrance of each goal box and served as an entrance door. The comparison stimulus was arranged so that the card serving as the correct door could be pushed down easily, thus permitting animals to gain entrance into the goal box, whereas the card denoting the incorrect door was locked. Four stimulus cards were used: white stimulus card, black stimulus card, vertically striped stimulus card, and horizontally striped stimulus card. The vertically or horizontally striped stimulus cards had alternating black and white lines 1 cm wide. For a white-black stimulus set, a white 12-cm square and a black 12-cm square of cardboard were used. A vertical stripe stimulus and a horizontal stripe stimulus were used for a vertical-horizontal stripe stimulus set. Procedure Animals were pretrained for 8 days prior to the beginning of a matching- or nonmatching-to-sample discrimination learning. On Day 1, they were allowed to explore the apparatus for two periods of 7 and 5 min. From Day 2 to Day 4, they were trained to push down a stimulus card and enter the goal box to obtain food for 10 daily trials. The gap was not present in this stage of the experiment. From Day 5 to Day 8, they were trained to jump over the gap for 10 trials a day. On the last day, all the animals jumped over the 15-cm gap. They were given the same number of trials on each goal during this pretraining. Medium-gray stimulus cards were used during this period. Phase 1: Matching-to-sample or nonmatching-to-sample discrimination training. Forty eight of the animals were trained for 12 trials a day with a matching-to-sample (Group Matching: M). The remaining animals were trained for 12 trials a day with a nonmatching-to-sample discrimination (Group Nonmatching: N). Training continued until a criterion of 11 correct trials out of a possible 12 had been reached. The animals in Group M were required to choose a comparison that was the same as a sample stimulus, whereas the animals in Group N were required to choose a comparison that was different from a sample stimulus. Half of the animals in each group were trained with a white-black stimulus set, the remaining animals were trained

478 NAKAGAWA with a vertical-horizontal stripe stimulus set. In the white-black stimulus set trials, the white stimulus was the sample stimulus on some trials and the black stimulus was the sample stimulus on the other trials, in random order within each session. In the vertical-horizontal stripe stimulus set trials, the vertical stripe stimulus was the sample on some trials and the horizontal stripe stimulus was the sample stimulus on the other trials, in random order within each session. A self-correction method was used, in which, if animals made an error, they were allowed to return to the platform and select the correct comparison. The position of a correct comparison stimulus followed four predetermined random sequences. The animals were given two 45-mg milk pellets when they made a correct response. The intertrial interval ranged from 4 to 8 min. Half of the animals of each group were received the same training for an additional 20 days after reaching the original learning criterion (Group OT), whereas the remaining animals received no further training in the original task once they had reached the criterion (Group NOT). Phase 2: Shift learning. After completing Phase 1 training, animals of each group were divided into three subgroups of either MM (i.e., matching to matching with new stimuli but same rule), MN-1 (i.e., matching to nonmatching with same stimuli but new rule), and MN-2 (i.e., matching to nonmatching with both new stimuli and new rule) or NN (i.e., nonmatching to nonmatching with new stimuli but same rule), NM-1 (i.e., nonmatching to matching with same stimuli but new rule), and NM-2 (i.e., nonmatching to matching with both new stimuli and new rule), matched with respect to the number of days to criterion. Animals were trained for 12 trials a day with a given shift task. Group MM and Group NN were run under a nonshift condition, in which the rule resolving the shift problem was not changed but the pair of stimuli was changed. That is, the animals of Group MM received a matching task in both Phases 1 and 2, and ones of Group NN received a nonmatching task in both Phases 1 and 2. Group MN-1 and Group NM-1 were run under a shift-1 condition, in which the rule was changed but the pair of stimuli was not changed. That is, the animals of Group MN-1 received a matching task in Phase 1 and a nonmatching task in Phase 2, and ones of Group NM-1 received a nonmatching task in Phase 1 and a matching task in Phase 2. Group MN-2 and Group NM- 2 were run under a shift-2 condition, in which both the rule and the pair of stimuli were changed. That is, the animals of Group MN-2 received a matching task in Phase 1 and a non matching task in Ph~se 2, and ones of Group NM-2 received a nonmatching task in Phase 1 and a matching task in Phase 2. All details of other aspects in training procedures were the same as those in Phase 1. Results The group-mean-days to criterion in Phase 1 are summarized in Table 1. Animals learned a matching-to-sample discrimination faster than a nonmatching-to-sample discrimination. But there was no indication of a

EFFECTS OF OVERTRAINING ON SHIFT 479 difference among these six groups on either a matching or nonmatching task in the rate at which they learned in Phase 1 training, and these observations were supported by statistical analysis. An ANOVA using task (matching vs. nonmatching), group (MM vs. MN-1 vs. MN-2 vs. NN vs. NM-1 vs. NM-2), and overtraining (OT vs. NOT) was performed on the number of days to criterion, which revealed that a main effect of task was significant [F(1, 84) = 84.69, P <.001], whereas neither main effects of group and overtraining nor the interactions was significant (all Fs < 1). These results indicated that animals learned the matching-to-sample discrimination significantly more rapidly than the nonmatching-to-sample discrimination, whereas there was no significant difference in the rate of learning among the six groups on either the matching or nonmatching task. Table 1 Means and Standard Deviations of Number of Days to Criterion in Phase 1 Training Group / M SO MM - OT 15.13 4.82 MM - NOT 16.13 4.22 MN-1 - OT 15.25 4.92 NM-1 - NOT 16.25 5.39 MN-2 - OT 15.88 4.91 MN-2 - NOT 16.00 6.56 NN - OT 28.60 5.74 NN - NOT 28.90 4.31 NM-1 - OT 28.10 5.78 NM-1 - NOT 28.90 7.87 NM-2 - OT 25.00 7.00 NM-2 - NOT 25.40 7.12 The results for each group in the Phase 2 shift are illustrated in Figure 2. Overtraining facilitated shift learning of Group MM, Group MN-1, Group MN-2, Group NN, Group NM-1, and Group NM-2. An ANOVA using group (MM vs. MN-1 vs. MN-2 vs. NN vs. NM-1 vs. NM-2) and overtraining (OT vs. NOT) was performed on the number of days to criterion, which revealed significant effects of group [F(S, 84) = 10.17, P <.001], and of overtraining [F(1, 84) = 91.SS, P <.001], and significant group x overtraining interaction [F(S, 84) = 3.4S, P <.01]. There were significant differences in the number of days to criterion among these six groups of MM, MN-1, MN-2, NN, NM-1, and NM-2 after overtraining [F(S, 84) = 3.83, P <.01] and after criterion training [F(S, 84) = 9.60, P <.001]. A Scheffe test was run to analyze differences in the number of days to criterion among these six groups after criterion training: Group MM learned the shift problem more rapidly than did either Group MN-1 [F(1, 42) = 14.77, P <.01] or Group NM-1 [F(1, 42) = 4.27, P <.OS]. Group MM learned the shift problem faster than did Group NM-2, but the difference between these two groups failed to reach significance [F(1, 42) < 1]. Group MN-2 learned the shift problem more rapidly than did Group NN (F(1, 42) :: 5.11, P <.05]. Group NN learned the shift problem faster than

480 NAKAGAWA did Group MN-1 [F(1, 42) = 10.93, P <.01]. Group NN learned the shift problem faster than did Group NM-1, but the difference between these two groups failed to reach significance [F(1, 42) = 2.34]. Group MN-2 learned the shift problem faster than did Group NM-1 [F(1, 42) = 14.37, P <.01] or Group MN-1 [F(1, 42) = 30.99, P <.01]. Group NM-2 learned the shift problem faster than did Group MN-1 [F(1, 42) = 11.50, P <.01]. Group NM-2 learned the shift problem faster than did Group NM-1, but the difference between these two groups failed to reach significance [F(1, 42) = 2.61]. After overtraining, Group MM learned the shift problem faster than did Group MN-1 [F(1, 42) = 12.07, P <.01], Group MN-2 [F(1, 42) = 4.47, P <.05], Group NM-1 [F(1, 42) = 20.70, P <.001], and Group NM- 2 [F(1, 42) = 7.62, P <.01]. Group NN learned the shift problem faster than did Group MN-1 [F(1, 42) = 8.15, P <.01], Group MN-2 [F(1, 42) = 4.59, P <.05], Group NM-1 [F(1, 42) = 15.45, P <.01], and Group NM-2 [F(1, 42) = 4.59, P <.05]. Group MN-2 learned the shift problem faster than did both Group NM-1 [F(1, 42) = 5.94, P <.05] or Group MN-1 [F(1, 42) = 3.20,.05 < P <.10]. Overtraining significantly facilitated the shift learning in either Group MM [F(1, 84) = 22.31, P <.001], Group MN-1 [F(1, 84) = 41.27, P <.001], Group NM-1 [F(1, 84) = 11.57, P <.001], Group NM-2 [F(1, 84) = 9.14, P <.01] or Group NN [F(1, 84) = 24.13, P <.001], whereas it did not significantly facilitate the shift learning in Group MN-2 [F(1, 84) = 1.08]. 14 elzl NOT OT z o 10 ~ ~ ~ () o I- 5 - GROUP Figure 2. Means days and SEMs to criterion for each group in Phase 2 shift.

EFFECTS OF OVERTRAINING ON SHIFT 481 To examine transfer of rule learning in Phase 1 training, performance on the first trial in the shift learning was analyzed. Wright (1991) has proposed criteria for concept learning: (1) Stimuli - all the transfer stimuli on a transfer trial should be novel and the differences among the stimuli (transfer and learning) should be large enough that the discrimination confusion is unlikely; (2) Testing frequency - transfer testing should be limited to the first presentation of each novel stimulus, so that the results will not be confounded by a history of reinforcement and subsequent learning; (3) Performance - transfer performance should be as good as baseline performance and both should be at a good performance level (Wright, 1991, p. 252). Therefore, performance on the first trial in the shift learning was used as a measure of transfer of rule learned in Phase 1 training. The results were as follows: 75% of the animals in Group MM-OT responded correctly on the first trial, and 75% of ones in Group MM-NOT responded correctly. By contrast, 37.5% of the animals in both Group MN-1-0T and Group MN-1-NOT responded correctly. In both Group MN-2-0T and Group MN-2-NOT, 37.5% of the animals responded correctly. Of the animals in Group NN-OT, 75% responded correctly as did 62.5% of those in Group NN-NOT. Of the animals of Group NM-1-0T, 25% responded correctly as did 37.5% of those in Group NM-1- NOT. Of the animals of Group NM-2-0T, 25% responded correctly as did 37.5% of those in Group NM-2-NOT. There were nonsignificant differences in the first-trial data between overtraining and criterion training conditions in all groups [all X 2 (1) < 1]. There were significant differences in the first trial data among six groups under overtraining condition [x2(5) = 19.08, P <.0001] and criterion condtion [x2(5) = 17.55, P <.001]. That is, performances of both Groups MM and NN (Le., nonshift groups) are superior to other groups (Le., shift groups) under overtraining and criterion training conditions. Discussion The first-trial data made it clear that performance of nonshift groups (Le., MM and NN) was always superior to shift groups (Le., MN-1, MN-2, NM-1, and NM-2) under either overtraining or criterion training conditions. This result was in line with the findings of Nakagawa (1992b, 1993a) with rats and the findings of Zentall and Hogan (1974,1975,1976) with pigeons. The more interesting findings are that the rats in Group MN-2 learned their shift task faster than those in Group NN after criterion training, whereas Group MM learned their shift task faster than Group NM-2, but this difference failed to reach significance. This result suggested that the rate of learning between shifted rats and nonshifted ones depended on whether they were tested with matching- or nonmatching-to-sample discrimination. This result, however, was not perfectly consistent with the finding of Wilson et al. (1985). By contrast, Group MM learned their shift task faster than Group NM-2, and Group NN also learned their shift task faster than Group MN-2 after overtraining. This result made it clear that the rate of shift learning between shifted rats and nonshifted ones did not depelld 011 whether they were tested with matching- or nonmatching-tosample discrimination. That is, nonshifted rats always learned the shift

482 NAKAGAWA problem more rapidly than did shifted ones with both a matching- and nonmatching-to-sample task after overtraining. These results indicated that it was possible that the asymmetry of transfer effect was obtained after criterion training, whereas the symmetry of transfer effect was obtained after overtraining. These findings suggested that the asymmetry of transfer effect was caused by lack of overtraining but not the animals' inherent bias toward the odd stimulus. These results were consistent with those of Nakagawa (1992c). The rats transferred from a matching-to-sample discrimination to a nonmatching-to-sample discrimination learned their problem faster than those shifted from a nonmatching-to-sample discrimination to a nonmatching-to-sample discrimination after criterion training in the present experiment, whereas the pigeons transferred from a matching-tosample discrimination to a matching-to-sample discrimination learned their problem faster than those shifted from a nonmatching-to-sample discrimination to a matching-to-sample discrimination in Wilson et al. (1985). This discrepancy between these two experiments might reflect differences in both stimuli and subjects used. The more important findings are as follows: The first is that both Group Nonshifts (i.e., MM and NN) and Group Shift-2s (i.e., MN-2 and NM-2) learned their shift problem more rapidly than did Group Shift-1 s (i.e., MN-1 and NM-1) after criterion and overtraining. This superiority of both Group Nonshifts and Group Shift-2s to Group Shift-1s might be caused by stimulus perseveration resulting from using the same stimuli between Phase 1 training and Phase 2 shift. The second is that overtraining significantly facilitated shift learning in Group MM, Group MN-1, Group NN, Group NM- 1, and Group NM-2, whereas it did not facilitate shift learning of Group MN- 2. These findings suggested that overtraining facilitated transfer in shift conditions as well as in nonshift conditions. In this experiment, rats learned the matching-to-sample task more rapidly than the nonmatching-to-sample one in Phase 1 training. This result was in line with the findings for young children (Nakagawa, 1988, 1992c) and for rats (Nakagawa, 1989, 1990, 1992b, 1993a, 1993b). However, this result was not consistent with findings of Aggleton (1985), Mumby et al. (1990), and Rothblat and Hayes (1987), who all reported a propensity for rats to select the nonmatching stimulus. This discrepancy might reflect differences in both the tasks and the apparatus used. Experiment 2 The results of Experiment 1 suggested that overtraining produced the symmetry of transfer effect in the simultaneous matching- (or nonmatching)-to-sample discrimination learning in rats. One way to demonstrate that rats can learn a relational concept of matching or nonmatching is the delayed matching- (or nonmatching)-to-sample procedure, in which the comparison stimuli are turned on immediately as the sample stimulus is turned off. Experiment 2 attempted to replicate the

EFFECTS OF OVERTRAINING ON SHIFT 483 effects of overtraining on the shift learning using a 1-s delayed matching- (or nonmatching)-to-sample discrimination procedure to test the generality of the effect of overtraining on transfer observed in Experiment 1. Rats were trained on either a 1-s delayed matching-to-sample or a 1-s delayed nonmatching-to-sample discrimination to reach a criterion and were overtrained for an additional 20 days. After completing Phase 1 training, they were transferred to either a shift learning or a nonshift learning. The expectation, based on the results of Experiment 1, is that the nonshifted rats learn their subsequent shift task more rapidly than the shifted ones. Method Subjects. Twenty-four experimentally naive male Sprague-Dawley rats were used. They were 240 days old with an initial average body weight of 551 g. All the details of feeding schedule and handling were the same as in Experiment 1. The animals were maintained on a 7:17-hr lightdark cycle, with lights off at 11 :00 a.m. Apparatus A Skinner box (15 cm high, 22.5 cm wide, and 15 cm long) was used in magazine training and lever-press training; it contained a 5-cm square display screen 5 cm above the floor, and one lever beside the screen, which was a 5-cm x 3-cm rectangle 5 cm above the floor. There was a food tray on the opposite side of the lever into which a milk pellet was delivered from a feeder when animals pressed the lever. An automatic T maze was used (Figure 3) (see Experiment 2 in Nakagawa, 1993a). The apparatus was painted medium gray inside and was lit throughout the experiment by a 10-W fluorescent lamp suspended 40 cm above the top of the choice chamber. The apparatus consisted of a runway (30 cm high, 12 cm wide, and 45 cm long) with a start box (30 cm high, 12 cm wide, and 25 cm long) and a choice chamber (30 cm high, 56 cm wide, and 15 cm long). Two walls of the apparatus were medium-gray Plexiglas and the ceiling was clear Plexiglas. The start box had a food tray in the center of the end wall, into which a milk pellet was delivered from a feeder when animals made a correct response. The choice chamber contained three display screens, each 12 cm square, which were 10 cm above the floor and 5 cm apart from edge to edge. There were two response levers in the choice chamber, each 4 cm square and 9 cm above the floor. These were located below the center of two screens. A guillotine door opened and closed automatically to control access to the start box. Whenever a rat interrupted a photobeam at the exit of the start box, which was located 3 cm from the guillotine door, stimuli were rear-projected automatically onto the screens. The rat was then allowed to approach and press a response lever, whenever it had to return to the start box. As it approached it interrupted another photobeam located 5 cm from the end wall of the start box, and the guillotine door closed automatically behind the rat. After 10

484 NAKAGAWA s the guillotine door opened automatically for the start of the next trial. The programming of events and data collection were carried out on-line using a laboratory computer. Sound masking was provided by white noise from a blower fan (50 db). Stimuli A sample stimulus was rear-projected onto the center screen by means of a Chargeur Universal Kodak Ektagraphic in-line projector (Model 2). Comparison stimuli were rear-projected onto both of the side screens by means of two Handy Cabin in-line projectors. A sample.. N. i t.'. '. ~ I... 1 -~---- -" S6 - -I "'5-+--12 1 SaI 12 1 Soot 12 ;~'5-l CS 55 CS ~,.~.. ~ t L CC t L RW J i GD PB~. ~. /7 ~--t.g.......,.. '. -l PG~. ' S8 ~~FT n~ '...--22'--... t... 12--t~22 Figure 3. Diagram of the T maze used in Experiment 2 (unit: centimeters) (CC = choice chamber; C8 = comparison stimulus; FT = food tray; GO = guillotine door; L = lever; PB = photo beam; PG = photo electric gate; RW = runway; 8B = start box; 88 = sample stimulus).

EFFECTS OF OVERTRAINING ON SHIFT 485 stimulus was rear-projected automatically for 4 s onto the center screen as soon as animals ran through the photo beam at the exit of the start box. One second after the onset of the sample stimulus, both comparisons were rear-projected onto the side screens. That is, both the sample and comparison stimuli were simultaneously projected for 3 s. When animals pressed a response lever, the comparisons disappeared. Four stimuli were used: vertical stripes, horizontal stripes, a circle with a 7.S-cm diameter, and an equilateral triangle with 10-cm sides. Both vertical stripes and horizontal ones had alternating black and white lines, 1 cm wide. Procedure Magazine training and shaping of lever press. Animals received magazine training and lever press training in a Skinner box for S days prior to the beginning of pretraining. On the last day all animals pressed the lever at least SO times for 30 min a day. Pre training. After completing both magazine training and lever-press shaping, animals were given pretraining for 10 days prior to the beginning of the training phase until they pressed the lever at least 30 times per day on each side in the automatic T maze. A medium-gray stimulus was rearprojected onto the screen during shaping and onto each of three screens during pretraining. Phase 1: Matching- (or nonmatching)-to-sample discrimination training. A trial in this experiment is defined as a response-stimulus sequence beginning when the animals start from the start box after opening the guillotine door, run down the runway, press a response lever, and then return to the start box. Half of the animals were trained with a 1-s delayed matching-tosample discrimination task for 12 trials a day (Group Matching). The remaining animals were trained with a 1-s delayed nonmatching-tosample discrimination task for 12 trials per day (Group Nonmatching). Training continued until a criterion of 10 correct trials a day out of a possible 12 had been reached. The animals of Group Matching were required to choose the same comparison as a sample stimulus. By contrast, the animals of Group Nonmatching were required to choose the different comparison from a sample. Half of the animals of each group were trained on the vertical-horizontal stripe stimulus set; the remaining animals were trained on the circle-triangle stimulus set. In the verticalhorizontal stripe stimulus set, the vertical-stripe stimulus was the sample stimulus on some trials and the horizontal-stripe stimulus was the sample stimulus on the other trials, in random order within each session. In the circle-triangle stimulus set, likewise, the circle was the sample stimulus on some trials and the triangle was the sample stimulus on the other trials, in random order within each session. The order of trials and the position of a correct comparison followed four predetermined random sequences. The animals were given one 4S-mg milk pellet with a click of feeder when they made a correct response. Intertrial interval was 10 s.

486 NAKAGAWA All animals received the same training for an additional 20 days after reaching the criterion in Phase 1 training. Phase 2 Transfer. After completing Phase 1 training, half of the animals in Group Matching were trained on a matching-to-sample discrimination task with a new stimulus set (Group Nonshift: matching to matching: MM); the remaining animals were trained on a nonmatching-tosample discrimination task with a new stimulus set (Group Shift: matching to nonmatching: MN). The animals of Group Nonmatching were likewise divided into the two subgroups of nonshift (nonmatching to nonmatching: NN) and shift (nonmatching to matching: NM). There was a complete counterbalancing of stimuli within these four groups. Other aspects of the procedure were the same as in Phase 1 training. Results The group-mean-days to criterion in Phase 1 training are summarized in Table 2. There was no indication of a difference among the four groups in the rate at which they learned in Phase 1 training, and this observation was supported by statistical analysis. The results of a two-way analysis of variance (AN OVA) using group (nonshift vs. shift) and task (matching vs. nonmatching) performed on the number of days to criterion on each task in Phase 1 training were as follows: Neither main effects nor interaction between group and task was significant (all Fs < 1). Table 2 Means and Standard Deviations of Number of Days to Criterion in Phase 1 Training Group / M SO Nonshift (Matching - Matching) 42.50 3.45 Shift (Matching - Nonmatching) 42.83 5.46 Nonshift (Nonmatching - Nonmatching) 46.17 4.71 Shift (Non matching - Matching) 45.83 4.60 The results for each group in Phase 2 shift learning are illustrated in Figure 4. A two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) using group (nonshift vs. shift) and task (matching vs. nonmatching) was performed on the number of days to criterion on each task. The analysis revealed a significant main effect of group [F(1, 20) = 37.63, P <.001], neither main effect of task [F(1, 20) = 1.51] nor interaction between group and task [F(1, 20) = 1.22] was significant. That is, the nonshifted rats learned either subsequent matching or nonmatching problem more rapidly than the shifted ones. To examine transfer of rule learning in both Group Shift and Group Nonshift, performance on the first trial in the transfer learning was analyzed. Of the animals in Group Nonshift 83.3% responded correctly. By contrast, 0% of the animals in Group Shift responded correctly. These scores of the two groups were, approximately, symmetrically displaced from the chance level of performance, 50%. A chi-square test was run to

EFFECTS OF OVERTRAINING ON SHIFT 487 17 15 o NON-SHIFT SHIFT z o a:: w t:::10 a:: o ~ g? < c z w ct 5 ;,: ---~ 0----... MATCHING NON-MATCHING TASK Figure 4. Mean days and SEMs to criterion for each group in Phase 2 transfer learning as a function of the task. analyze differences in performance on the first trial between Groups Nonshift and Shift. The analysis revealed a significant between-group difference [X 2 (1) = 17.14, P <.01]. Discussion This experiment essentially replicated the pattern of results seen in the first study: The first-trial data of the transfer test suggested that rats chose between a novel pair of stimuli in accordance with the rule that they

488 NAKAGAWA learned in Phase 1 training, performing above chance if the rule was unchanged, below chance if it was changed, and the symmetry of transfer effect was observed. That is, the nonshifted rats learned their subsequent shift task more rapidly than did the shifted ones, regardless of whether they were tested on the matching-to-sample discrimination task or the nonmatching-to-sample discrimination task. The symmetry of transfer effect observed in the present experiment indicated that overtraining pointed animals to configuration of stimuli with the same response assignment so that animals had steadily established common response to configuration of stimuli in both the delayed matching-to-sample discrimination task and the delayed nonmatching-tosample discrimination one as in the simultaneous matching- (or nonmatching)-to-sample discrimination learning in Experiment 1. General Discussion In Experiment 1 rats in Group MN-2 learned their shift task significantly faster than did ones in Group NN criterion training, and rats in Group MM learned their shift task faster than ones in Group NM-2, but the difference between these two groups failed to reach significance. In contrast, rats in Group MM learned their shift task faster than did ones in Group NM-2, and rats in Group NN learned their shift task faster than did ones in Group MN-2 after overtraining (symmetry of transfer effect). Furthermore, Experiment 1 made it clear that rats trained with new stimuli but the same rule in effect and rats trained with both a new rule and new stimuli learned much faster that those exposed to reversal training with the same stimuli but new rules. In addition, the effect of overtraining clearly led to improved performance with the new conditions. This is a novel contribution to the literature of matching (or nonmatching)-to-sample discriminations in animals. In Experiment 2 rats in Group MM learned their shift task more rapidly than did ones in Group NM, and rats in Group NN also learned their shift task more rapidly than did ones in Group MN. Thus, the findings of the present experiments offer strong empirical support for possibility that overtraining results in the symmetry of transfer effect in a matching- (or nonmatching)-to-sample discrimination. In Experiment 1, overtraining facilitated shift learning of either Group MM, Group MN-1, Group NN, Group NM-1, or Group NM-2. These findings are not readily explained by Lawrence's theory (1949, 1950) and Mackintosh's theory (1965). Lawrence (1949, 1950) has asserted that overtraining results in an acquired distinctiveness of stimuli. Mackintosh (1965) has asserted that overtraining results in an increment of attention to a relevant analyzer. On both the nonshift (i.e., matching to matching or nonmatching to nonmatching: MM or NN) and the shift-2 conditions (i.e., matching to nonmatching or nonmatching to matching: MN-2 or NM-2), the stimulus set employed in Phase 2 was different from that used in Phase 1. Thus, according to both Lawrence's theory (1949, 1950) and Mackintosh's theory (1965), overtraining should not facilitate the shift learning in either Group MM, Group NN, or Group NM-2. But these results

EFFECTS OF OVERTRAINING ON SHIFT 489 were not obtained in Experiment 1. By contrast, Nakagawa (1993b) has asserted that rats form a concept by common response (e.g., choosing a certain goal box): Rats associate configuration of stimuli with goal-boxchoosing responses. For example, in a case of a matching-to-sample discrimination, rats learn to associate one configuration of stimuli (i.e., AAB and BBA) with choosing the left goal box followed by a reward and the other configuration (Le., BAA and ABB) with choosing the right goal box followed by a reward, in which the two sides letters refer to the comparison stimuli and the center letter refers to the sample stimulus. They then form associations between the configurations with the same response assignment. Configurations of stimulus pairs, to which common responses are made, tend to become functionally equivalent in evoking further responses. The common response mediates concepts of matching and nonmatching to subsequent shift problems (see also Nakagawa, 1993b). Nakagawa (1993b), on the premise that the novel stimuli and novel configurations appearing in the transfer tests generate the same mediator, has asserted that a common response mediates concepts of matching and non matching to subsequent shift problems. This assumption is supported by the findings of both Experiments 1 and 2 in Nakagawa (2000b). Furthermore, these proposals are supported by the findings in Nakagawa (1999b, 2000a). The findings of Experiments 1 and 3 in Nakagawa (1999b) have demonstrated that transfer between two concurrent discriminations and a matching- (or nonmatching)-to-sample discrimination is mediated by the formation of concept. The findings of Nakagawa (1999b) suggest that the findings of the present study are explained by Nakagawa's view (1978, 1986, 1992a, 1993b, 1998, 1999a, 1999c, 1999d). That is, the positive overtraining shift effect in both Group MM and Group NN in Experiment 1 can be understood if overtraining in the matching- (or nonmatching)-to-sample discrimination results in the development of common response to the configurations of stimuli with the same response assignment. As a consequence following overtraining, the common response to the configurations of stimuli directly transfers to a subsequent matching- (or nonmatching)-to-sample discrimination shift in both Group MM and Group NN. That is, rats have steadily established common responses to the configurations of stimuli during overtraining, whereas they have not yet sufficiently established common responses to the configurations of stimuli at reaching criterion. Consequently, overtraining should facilitate the subsequent shift learning of both Group MM and Group NN. This proposal is supported by the findings of Experiment 1. Findings that overtraining facilitated the shift learning of both Group MN-1 and Group NM-1 in Experiment 1 are explained by Lawrence's theory (1949, 1950) and Mackintosh's theory (1965). These findings suggested that overtraining resulted in an acquired distinctiveness of stimuli or an increment of attention to a relevant analyzer in a matching (or nonmatching)-to-sample discrimination, so that overtraining facilitated subsequent reversal shift in a matching- (or nonmatching)-to-sample discrimination as well as in single or concurrent discriminations.

490 NAKAGAWA The positive overtraining shift effect of Group NM-2 in Experiment 1 might be caused by generalization of common response to the configurations of stimuli steadily established during overtraining. Asymmetry vs. symmetry of transfer effect. The asymmetry of transfer effect in a matching- (or nonmatching)-to-sample discrimination has observed under the condition that animals were trained with a matching (or nonmatching)-to-sample discrimination to criterion and then transferred to a new pair of stimuli, with the same rule holding as on Phase 1 training or with the opposite. See also Wilson et al. (1985) and Nakagawa (1992b, 1993a). That is, previous studies that observed the asymmetry of transfer effect have not given their subjects additional preshift training after completing initial learning (Nakagawa, 1992b, 1993a; Wilson et ai., 1985; Zentall & Hogan, 1974, 1975). In Experiment 1, Group MN-2 had better performance on the subsequent shift problem than Group NN, whereas Group MM had better performance on the subsequent shift problem than Group NM-2, but this difference failed to reach significance, after criterion training. By contrast, the symmetry of transfer effect was obtained after overtraining. These findings made it clear that the asymmetry of transfer effect was observed after criterion training but not after overtraining. Experiment 2 replicated the finding that overtraining resulted in the symmetry of transfer effect. The symmetry of transfer effect in the present experiments is readily explained by Nakagawa's view (1978, 1986, 1992a, 1993b, 1998, 1999a, 1999c, 1999d). According to Nakagawa's view, the symmetry of transfer effect could be due to generalization of the common response steadily established in both Group MM and Group NN during overtraining. By contrast, as animals had not yet sufficiently established common response to configurations of stimuli at reaching criterion, the asymmetry of transfer effect after criterion training could be due to generalization decrement of common response to the configurations of stimuli produced by the introduction of novel stimuli in Phase 2 shift. Another possibility is that the asymmetry of transfer effect could be caused by the animals' inherent bias toward the odd stimulus occurring in Phase 1 training and Phase 2 shift as Wilson et al. (1985) advocated. The findings of the present experiments indicated that the asymmetry of transfer effect was due to lack of overtraining, and that the symmetry of transfer effect was due to generalization of common responses to the configuration of stimuli established in both Groups MM and NN during overtraining. Either the asymmetry of transfer effect after criterion training or the symmetry of transfer effect after overtraining is a phenomenon observed in the daysto-criterion data. Thus, these phenomena should be largely affected by reinforcement history in Phase 2 shift. The asymmetry of transfer effect after criterion training does not always mean that rats can not form the abstract concept of matching or non matching at reaching criterion. Alternatively, performance on the first trial between a nonshift and a shift group was, consistently, symmetrically displaced from the chance level of performance (50%) in Experiments 1 and 2 of the present study,

EFFECTS OF OVERTRAINING ON SHIFT 491 Nakagawa (1992b, 1993a) and Zentall and Hogan (1974, 1975). Performance on the first trial should not quite be affected by reinforcement history in Phase 2 shift. Performance on the first trial indicated degree of pure transfer of learning in Phase 1 training (i.e., abstract concept of matching or nonmatching). Thus, the findings of Experiment 1 in the present study suggested that rats formed the abstract concept of matching or nonmatching after criterion training. This was supported by the fact that performance on the first trial between a nonshift group and a shift-2 group was not affected by overtraining in Experiment 1. The findings of the present study made it clear that overtraining resulted in the symmetry of transfer effect in a matching- (or nonmatching)-to-sample discrimination. This is a novel contribution to the literature. References AGGLETON, J. P (1985). One-trial object recognition by rats. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 37B, 279-294. DELI US, J. D., AMELlNG, M., LEA, S. E. G., & STADDON, J. E. R. (1995). Reinforcement concordance induces and maintains stimulus associations in pigeons. The Psychological Record, 45, 283-297. DUBE, W. V, CALLAHAN, T. D., & MCILVANE, W. J. (1993). Serial reversals of concurrent auditory discriminations in rats. The Psychological Record, 43, 429-440. EDWARDS, C. A., JAGIELO, J. A., & ZENTALL, T. R. (1983). "Same/different" symbol use by pigeons. Animal Learning & Behavior, 11, 349-355. FETTERMAN, J. G. (1991). Discrimination of temporal same-different relations by pigeons. In M. L. Commons, J. A. Nevin, & M. C. Davison (Eds.), Signal detection: Mechanisms, models, and applications (pp. 79-101). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. LAWRENCE, D. H. (1949). Acquired distinctiveness of cues: I. Transfer between discriminations on the basis of familiarity with the stimulus. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 39, 770-784. LAWRENCE, D. H. (1950). Acquired distinctiveness of cues: II. Selective association in a constant stimulus situation. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 40, 175-188. LOMBARDI, C. M., FACHINELLI, C. C., & DELI US, J. D. (1984). Oddity of visual pattern conceptualized by pigeons. Animal Learning & Behavior, 12, 2-6. MACKINTOSH, N. J. (1965). Selective attention in animal discrimination learning. Psychological Bulletin, 64, 124-150. MUMBY, D. G., PINEL, J. P, & WOOD, E. R. (1990). Nonrecurring items delayed nonmatching-to-sample in rats: A new paradigm for testing non spatial working memory. Psychobiology, 18, 321-326. NAKAGAWA, E. (1978). The effect of overtraining on discrimination learning in white rats (in Japanese). Japanese Journal of Psychology, 49, 70-77. NAKAGAWA, E. (1986). Overtraining, extinction and shift learning in a concurrent discrimination in rats. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 38B, 313-326.

492 NAKAGAWA NAKAGAWA, E. (1988). Shift learning on identity and oddity learning in young children: Examination of validity of House's chain model and Bowers's rule model (in Japanese). Japanese Journal of Educational Psychology, 36, 333-338. NAKAGAWA, E. (1989). Matching and oddity learnings in white rats. Memoirs of the Faculty of Education, Kagawa University, II, 39, 29-38. NAKAGAWA, E. (1990). Transfer of rule learning in rats. Memoirs of the Faculty of Education, Kagawa University, 1,80, 89-104. NAKAGAWA, E. (1992a). Effects of overtraining on reversal learning by rats in concurrent and single discriminations. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 44B, 37-56. NAKAGAWA, E. (1992b). Transfer of a matching and non matching concept in rats. Psychobiology, 20, 311-314. NAKAGAWA, E. (1992c). Transfer of matching and nonmatching learning in Kindergarten children (in Japanese). Japanese Journal of Educational Psychology, 40, 266-275. NAKAGAWA, E. (1993a). Matching and non matching concept learning in rats. Psychobiology, 21, 142-150. NAKAGAWA, E. (1993b). Relational rule learning in the rat. Psychobiology, 21, 293-298. NAKAGAWA, E. (1998). Stimulus classes formation process in concurrent discriminations in rats as a function of overtraining. The Psychological Record, 48, 537-552. NAKAGAWA, E. (1999a). A factor affecting stimulus classes formation in concurrent discriminations in rats. The Psychological Record, 49, 117-136. NAKAGAWA, E. (1999b). Transfer between concurrent discriminations and matching (or nonmatching)-to-sample discriminations in rats. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 52B, 125-143. NAKAGAWA, E. (1999c). Acquired equivalence of discriminative stimuli following two concurrent discrimination learning tasks as a function of overtraining in rats. The Psychological Record, 49, 327-348. NAKAGAWA, E. (1999d). Mechanism of stimulus classes formation in concurrent discriminations in rats. The Psychological Record, 49, 349-368. NAKAGAWA, E. (2000a). Reversal learning in conditional discrimination is not controlled by reinforcement density. The Psychological Record, 50, 117-140. NAKAGAWA, E. (2000b). Transfer of learning between matching (or nonmatching)-to-sample and same-different discriminations in rats. The Psychological Record, 50, 771-806. NAKAGAWA, E. (2000c). Effects of overtraining on reversal and nonreversal learning on concurrent discriminations in rats. The Psychological Record, 50, 53-66. NAKAGAWA, E. (2001). Cross-modal stimulus class formation in rats. The Psychological Record, 51, 53-66. ROTH BLAT, L. A., & HAYES, L. L. (1987). Short-term object recognition memory in rats: Nonmatching with trial-unique junk stimuli. Behavioral Neuroscience, 101, 578-590. SANTIAGO, H., & WRIGHT, A. A. (1984). Pigeon memory: Same/different concept learning, serial probe recognition acquisition, and probe delay effects on the serial-position function. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 10, 498-512. URCUIOLl, P J. (1977). Transfer of oddity-from-sample performance in pigeons. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 27, 195-202.

EFFECTS OF OVERTRAINING ON SHIFT 493 URCUIOLl, P. J., & NEVIN, J. A. (1975). Transfer of hue matching in pigeons. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 24, 149-155. URCUIOLl, P. J., ZENTALL, T. R, JACKSON-SMITH, P., & STEIRN, J. N. (1989). Evidence for common coding in many-to-one matching: Retention, intertrial interference, and transfer. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 15, 264-273. VAUGHAN, W., Jr. (1988). Formation of equivalence sets in pigeons. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 14, 36-42. WILSON, B., MACKINTOSH, N. J., & BOAKES, R. A. (1985). Matching and oddity learning in the pigeons: Transfer effects and the absence of relational learning. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 37B, 295-311. WRIGHT, A. A. (1991). Concept learning by monkeys and pigeons. In W. A. Abraham, M. Corballis, & K. G. White (Eds.), Memory mechanisms: A tribute to G. V Goddard (pp. 241-272). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. WRIGHT, A. A., SANTIAGO, H. C., SANDS, S. E, KENDRICK, D. E, & COOK, R. G. (1985). Memory processing of serial list by pigeons, monkey, and people. Science, 229, 287-289. WRIGHT, A. A., SANTIAGO, H. C., URCUIOLl, P. J., & SANDS, S. E (1983). Monkey and pigeon acquisition of same/different concept using pictorial stimuli. In M. L. Commons, R. J. Herrstein, & A. R Wagner (Eds.), Quantitative analysis of behavior (Vol. 4, pp. 295-317). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger. ZENTALL, T. R, & HOGAN, D. E. (1974). Abstract concept learning in the pigeon. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 102, 393-398. ZENTALL, T. R., & HOGAN, D. E. (1975). Concept learning in the pigeon: Transfer to new matching and non matching stimuli. American Journal of Psychology, 88, 233-244. ZENTALL, T. R., & HOGAN, D. E. (1976). Pigeons can learn identity or difference. Science, 191,408-409. ZENTALL, T. R, SHERBURNE, L. M., STEIRN, J. N., RANDALL, C. K., ROPER, K. L., & URCUIOLl, P. J. (1992). Common coding in pigeons: Partial versus total reversals of one-to-many conditional discriminations. Animal Learning & Behavior, 20, 373-381. ZENTALL, T. R., STEIRN, J. N., SHERBURNE, L. M., & URCUIOLl, P. J. (1991). Common coding in pigeons assessed through partial versus total reversals of many-to-one conditional and simple discriminations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 17, 194-201.