FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 10000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior1991; 56(1); 97-104; doi: 10.1901/jeab.1991.56-97

Stimulus generalization, discrimination learning, and peak shift in horses.

Abstract: Using horses, we investigated three aspects of the stimulus control of lever-pressing behavior: stimulus generalization, discrimination learning, and peak shift. Nine solid black circles, ranging in size from 0.5 in. to 4.5 in. (1.3 cm to 11.4 cm) served as stimuli. Each horse was shaped, using successive approximations, to press a rat lever with its lip in the presence of a positive stimulus, the 2.5-in. (6.4-cm) circle. Shaping proceeded quickly and was comparable to that of other laboratory organisms. After responding was maintained on a variable-interval 30-s schedule, stimulus generalization gradients were collected from 2 horses prior to discrimination training. During discrimination training, grain followed lever presses in the presence of a positive stimulus (a 2.5-in circle) and never followed lever presses in the presence of a negative stimulus (a 1.5-in. [3.8-cm] circle). Three horses met a criterion of zero responses to the negative stimulus in fewer than 15 sessions. Horses given stimulus generalization testing prior to discrimination training produced symmetrical gradients; horses given discrimination training prior to generalization testing produced asymmetrical gradients. The peak of these gradients shifted away from the negative stimulus. These results are consistent with discrimination, stimulus generalization, and peak-shift phenomena observed in other organisms.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 1991-07-01 PubMed ID: 1940765PubMed Central: PMC1323085DOI: 10.1901/jeab.1991.56-97Google Scholar: Lookup
The Equine Research Bank provides access to a large database of publicly available scientific literature. Inclusion in the Research Bank does not imply endorsement of study methods or findings by Mad Barn.
LinkedInCopy
  • Journal Article

Summary

This research summary has been generated with artificial intelligence and may contain errors and omissions. Refer to the original study to confirm details provided. Submit correction.

The research investigates how horses are able to learn from stimuli, showing their ability to generalize from stimuli, learn how to discriminate between different stimuli, and adapt their response accordingly (known as peak shift). The experiments used circles of different sizes as the stimuli and taught the horses to press a lever in the presence of a certain sized circle.

Stimulus Generalization

  • The study began by exploring stimulus generalization, which is the tendency of a subject to respond to stimuli that are similar but not identical to the original stimulus.
  • The researchers used a range of circles from 0.5-inch to 4.5-inch as stimuli and trained the horses to press a lever when they saw a 2.5-inch circle – this was the ‘positive’ stimulus. Two horses out of the sample set were tested on their stimulus generalization before they were trained on discrimination.
  • The intention was to understand if the horses could transfer the response from the 2.5-inch circle to other similar circles.

Discrimination Learning

  • Following the test on stimulus generalization, the horses were then trained on discrimination learning, which involves learning to distinguish the positive stimulus from a negative one and responding accordingly.
  • In this phase, the positive stimulus which prompts the horse to press the lever was the 2.5-inch circle and the negative stimulus which should not prompt a lever press was the 1.5-inch circle.
  • Three horses met a criterion of zero responses to the negative stimulus in fewer than 15 sessions. This showed that the horses were able to quickly learn and differentiate between the positive and negative stimulus.

Peak Shift

  • The last part of the experiment looked at the concept of “peak shift”. This is a behavior change in which the peak response is shifted away from the original stimulus towards a more exaggerated stimulus.
  • For the horses that were given discrimination training before generalization testing, their peak response shifted away from the negative stimulus.
  • This indicates that they adjusted their behaviour based on prior training, showing a more exaggerated response to similar but not negative stimuli.

Overall Findings

  • Overall, the results of this study align with previous research on discrimination, stimulus generalization, and peak-shift phenomena observed in other organisms.
  • It showed that horses, like other laboratory animals, can exhibit stimulus control behaviours, giving valuable insights into the cognitive processes of these animals.

Cite This Article

APA
Dougherty DM, Lewis P. (1991). Stimulus generalization, discrimination learning, and peak shift in horses. J Exp Anal Behav, 56(1), 97-104. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1991.56-97

Publication

Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior
ISSN: 0022-5002
NlmUniqueID: 0203727
Country: United States
Language: English
Volume: 56
Issue: 1
Pages: 97-104

Researcher Affiliations

Dougherty, D M
  • Department of Psychology, Ohio University, Athens 45701.
Lewis, P

    MeSH Terms

    • Animals
    • Appetitive Behavior
    • Attention
    • Conditioning, Operant
    • Discrimination Learning
    • Female
    • Generalization, Stimulus
    • Horses / psychology
    • Male
    • Pattern Recognition, Visual
    • Size Perception

    References

    This article includes 26 references
    1. Migler B, Millenson JR. Analysis of response rates during stimulus generalization.. J Exp Anal Behav 1969 Jan;12(1):81-7.
      pubmed: 16811342doi: 10.1901/jeab.1969.12-81google scholar: lookup
    2. KALISH HI. The relationship between discriminability and generalization: a revaluation.. J Exp Psychol 1958 Jun;55(6):637-44.
      pubmed: 13563782doi: 10.1037/h0048049google scholar: lookup
    3. Blough DS. Generalization gradient shape and summation in steady-state tests.. J Exp Anal Behav 1969 Jan;12(1):91-104.
      pubmed: 16811343doi: 10.1901/jeab.1969.12-91google scholar: lookup
    4. MYERS RD, MESKER DC. Operant responding in a horse under several schedules of reinforcement.. J Exp Anal Behav 1960 Apr;3(2):161-4.
      pubmed: 14425607doi: 10.1901/jeab.1960.3-161google scholar: lookup
    5. Tracy WK. Wavelength generalization and preference in monochromatically reared ducklings.. J Exp Anal Behav 1970 Mar;13(2):163-78.
      pubmed: 5500441doi: 10.1901/jeab.1970.13-163google scholar: lookup
    6. SLOANE HN Jr. STIMULUS GENERALIZATION ALONG A LIGHT FLICKER RATE CONTINUUM AFTER DISCRIMINATION TRAINING WITH SEVERAL S-'S.. J Exp Anal Behav 1964 May;7(3):217-22.
      pubmed: 14143907doi: 10.1901/jeab.1964.7-217google scholar: lookup
    7. FLESHLER M, HOFFMAN HS. A progression for generating variable-interval schedules.. J Exp Anal Behav 1962 Oct;5(4):529-30.
      pubmed: 13945507doi: 10.1901/jeab.1962.5-529google scholar: lookup
    8. Thomas DR, Lyons J. Further evidence of a sensory-tonic interaction in pigeons.. J Exp Anal Behav 1968 Mar;11(2):167-71.
      pubmed: 5645873doi: 10.1901/jeab.1968.11-167google scholar: lookup
    9. BLOUGH DS. Generalization and preference on a stimulus-intensity continuum.. J Exp Anal Behav 1959 Oct;2(4):307-17.
      pubmed: 13801644doi: 10.1901/jeab.1959.2-307google scholar: lookup
    10. Moody DB, Stebbins WC, Iglauer C. Auditory generalization gradients for response latency in the monkey.. J Exp Anal Behav 1971 Jul;16(1):105-11.
      pubmed: 5003971doi: 10.1901/jeab.1971.16-105google scholar: lookup
    11. BRUSH FR, BUSH RR, JENKINS WO, JOHN WF, WHITING JW. Stimulus generalization after extinction and punishment: an experimental study of displacement.. J Abnorm Psychol 1952 Jul;47(3):633-40.
      pubmed: 12980764doi: 10.1037/h0055188google scholar: lookup
    12. HANSON HM. Effects of discrimination training on stimulus generalization.. J Exp Psychol 1959 Nov;58:321-34.
      pubmed: 13851902doi: 10.1037/h0042606google scholar: lookup
    13. Heffner RS, Heffner HE. Localization of tones by horses: use of binaural cues and the role of the superior olivary complex.. Behav Neurosci 1986 Feb;100(1):93-103.
      pubmed: 3954885doi: 10.1037//0735-7044.100.1.93google scholar: lookup
    14. THOMAS DR. The effects of drive and discrimination training on stimulus generalization.. J Exp Psychol 1962 Jul;64:24-8.
      pubmed: 13920762doi: 10.1037/h0047080google scholar: lookup
    15. Ernst AJ, Engberg L, Thomas DR. On the form of stimulus generalization curves for visual intensity.. J Exp Anal Behav 1971 Sep;16(2):177-80.
      pubmed: 5121854doi: 10.1901/jeab.1971.16-177google scholar: lookup
    16. GUTTMAN N, KALISH HI. Discriminability and stimulus generalization.. J Exp Psychol 1956 Jan;51(1):79-88.
      pubmed: 13286444doi: 10.1037/h0046219google scholar: lookup
    17. PIERREL R, SHERMAN JG. Generalization of auditory intensity following discrimination training.. J Exp Anal Behav 1960 Oct;3(4):313-22.
      pubmed: 13735584doi: 10.1901/jeab.1960.3-313google scholar: lookup
    18. Rudolph RL, Honig WK. Effects of monochromatic rearing on spectral discrimination learning and the peak shift in chicks.. J Exp Anal Behav 1972 Jan;17(1):107-11.
      pubmed: 5019997doi: 10.1901/jeab.1972.17-107google scholar: lookup
    19. Heffner HE, Heffner RS. Sound localization in large mammals: localization of complex sounds by horses.. Behav Neurosci 1984 Jun;98(3):541-55.
      pubmed: 6732928doi: 10.1037//0735-7044.98.3.541google scholar: lookup
    20. GRICE GR, SALTZ E. The generalization of an instrumental response to stimuli varying in the size dimension.. J Exp Psychol 1950 Dec;40(6):702-8.
      pubmed: 14803644doi: 10.1037/h0054435google scholar: lookup
    21. ROSENBAUM G. Stimulus generalization as a function of level of experimentally induced anxiety.. J Exp Psychol 1953 Jan;45(1):35-43.
      pubmed: 13034999doi: 10.1037/h0054120google scholar: lookup
    22. Pierrel R. A generalization gradient for auditory intensity in the rat.. J Exp Anal Behav 1958 Oct;1(4):303-13.
      pubmed: 16811230doi: 10.1901/jeab.1958.1-303google scholar: lookup
    23. Riccio DC, Urda M, Thomas DR. Stimulus control in pigeons based on proprioceptive stimuli from floor inclination.. Science 1966 Jul 22;153(3734):434-6.
      pubmed: 5940372doi: 10.1126/science.153.3734.434google scholar: lookup
    24. Fay RR. Auditory frequency generalization in the goldfish (Carassius auratus).. J Exp Anal Behav 1970 Nov;14(3):353-60.
      pubmed: 16811481doi: 10.1901/jeab.1970.14-353google scholar: lookup
    25. JENKINS WO, PASCAL GR, WALKER RW Jr. Deprivation and generalization.. J Exp Psychol 1958 Sep;56(3):274-7.
      pubmed: 13575732doi: 10.1037/h0043850google scholar: lookup
    26. Bloomfield TM. A peak shift on a line-tilt continuum.. J Exp Anal Behav 1967 Jul;10(4):361-6.
      pubmed: 6033557doi: 10.1901/jeab.1967.10-361google scholar: lookup

    Citations

    This article has been cited 9 times.
    1. Kappel S, Ramirez Montes De Oca MA, Collins S, Herborn K, Mendl M, Fureix C. Do you see what I see? Testing horses' ability to recognise real-life objects from 2D computer projections. Anim Cogn 2023 Jul;26(4):1147-1159.
      doi: 10.1007/s10071-023-01761-6pubmed: 36864246google scholar: lookup
    2. Ragonese G, Baragli P, Mariti C, Gazzano A, Lanatà A, Ferlazzo A, Fazio E, Cravana C. Interspecific two-dimensional visual discrimination of faces in horses (Equus caballus). PLoS One 2021;16(2):e0247310.
      doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0247310pubmed: 33606816google scholar: lookup
    3. Lin IR, Chiao CC. Visual Equivalence and Amodal Completion in Cuttlefish. Front Physiol 2017;8:40.
      doi: 10.3389/fphys.2017.00040pubmed: 28220075google scholar: lookup
    4. Derenne A. Shifts in postdiscrimination gradients within a stimulus dimension based on bilateral facial symmetry. J Exp Anal Behav 2010 May;93(3):485-94.
      doi: 10.1901/jeab.2010.93-485pubmed: 21119858google scholar: lookup
    5. Wisniewski MG, Church BA, Mercado E 3rd. Learning-related shifts in generalization gradients for complex sounds. Learn Behav 2009 Nov;37(4):325-35.
      doi: 10.3758/LB.37.4.325pubmed: 19815929google scholar: lookup
    6. Miyashita Y, Nakajima S, Imada H. Differential outcome effect in the horse. J Exp Anal Behav 2000 Sep;74(2):245-53.
      doi: 10.1901/jeab.2000.74-245pubmed: 11029025google scholar: lookup
    7. Dougherty DM, Lewis P. Generalization of a tactile stimulus in horses. J Exp Anal Behav 1993 May;59(3):521-8.
      doi: 10.1901/jeab.1993.59-521pubmed: 8315368google scholar: lookup
    8. Ricci-Bonot C, Brosche K, Baragli P, Nicol C. A systematic review on the effect of individual characteristics and management practices on equine cognition. Anim Cogn 2025 Nov 26;28(1):96.
      doi: 10.1007/s10071-025-02016-2pubmed: 41296132google scholar: lookup
    9. Caldicott L, Pike TW, Zulch HE, Mills DS, Williams FJ, Elliker KR, Hutchings B, Wilkinson A. Odour generalisation and detection dog training. Anim Cogn 2024 Nov 1;27(1):73.
      doi: 10.1007/s10071-024-01907-0pubmed: 39485633google scholar: lookup
    Subscribe to our newsletter
    Join 99,911 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.