The essential value of the alternatives of the suboptimal choice procedure is different for pigeons and rats.

Suboptimal choice is the preference for a discriminative alternative with low probability of reinforcement, over a non-discriminative alternative with higher probability of reinforcement. Pigeons consistently prefer the discriminative alternative, whereas rats prefer the non-discriminative; the variables accounting for this difference are not yet clear. The economic concepts related to demand curves have been used to calculate the essential value of different types of reinforcers, so they may be useful to compare the value of the alternatives in the suboptimal choice procedure. The goal of this study was to calculate the essential value of each of the alternatives presented in the suboptimal choice procedure to assess if pigeons (Experiment 1) and rats (Experiment 2) value them differently. In both experiments, the fixed ratio requirement in the initial link was increased throughout sessions in order to obtain the demand curve and calculate the essential value by fitting the exponential-demand model. A Bayesian Linear Mixed-Effects Model indicated that pigeons had higher essential values for the discriminative alternative, whereas rats obtained higher essential values for the non-discriminative alternative. These results suggest that preferences in the suboptimal choice procedure are indeed based on the essential value of the alternatives, and provide a new paradigm to study the variables affecting this phenomenon.

Suboptimal choice by pigeons is eliminated when key-pecking behavior is replaced by treadle-pressing.

In the study of suboptimal choice, a reliable result is that pigeons strongly prefer an alternative that signals whether a reinforcer will be delivered or not over another alternative without that information even if the first provides a lower probability of reinforcement. In the aforementioned research, key pecking has been the operant response and illuminated keys the discriminative stimuli. In the present study we modified both of these aspects of the procedure in order to analyze the generality of suboptimal preferences of pigeons and to investigate the effect of changes in the incentive salience of the discriminative stimuli. To accomplish this, we presented pigeons a choice situation with the same parameters of reinforcement than previous research, but with treadle pressing as the choice response and ambient lights as discriminative stimuli. Under these conditions, most of the pigeons showed optimal behavior and a high degree of discrimination of the stimuli associated with the discriminative alternative. A control condition with key pecking as choice response and keylights as discriminative stimuli showed that the same pigeons turned to be suboptimal, a result that discards the possibility that the optimality found in the main condition was a consequence of a particular characteristic of our sample of subjects or of our procedure. We discuss the influence that the attribution of incentive salience to the discriminative stimuli has on suboptimal choice in both pigeons and rats.

Rats' preferences in the suboptimal choice procedure: Evaluating the impact of reinforcement probability and conditioned inhibitors.

Previous research has shown that pigeons and other birds display a strong and consistent preference for an alternative of reinforcement that presents stimuli that allow to discriminate whether a reinforcer will be delivered or not, even when its probability of reinforcement is lower than that of another alternative without those stimuli. In contrast, most of the studies performed with rats report that they show the opposite preference, choosing the alternative with higher probability of reinforcement. To explain these opposite preferences, it has been proposed that rats and pigeons have a differential sensitivity to the conditioned inhibition that emerges from the stimulus that predicts non-reinforcement: While it does not have an impact in pigeons, it strongly influences rats´ preferences. Alternatively, it was recently proposed that there is not a fundamental difference in the behavior of rats and pigeons, but that the procedure employed to evaluate each of these species has generated the difference; in particular, it was proposed that both species prefer the discriminative alternative when the discriminative stimuli have incentive salience. Two recent studies provide support for each of these hypotheses, so that the available evidence does not allow to distinguish between them. In the present report, we present three studies that systematically explore the influence of the procedural differences between the studies with discrepant results. The obtained results provide support for the following ideas: a) there is a fundamental difference between pigeons and rats in their choice behavior in the "suboptimal choice procedure", b) considering the incentive salience of the discriminative stimuli does not resolve it, and c) rats' optimality is a consistent phenomenon, which resists manipulations in reinforcement probabilities and the absence of conditioned inhibitors in the discriminative alternative.

Incentive salience attribution is not the sole determinant of suboptimal choice in rats: Conditioned inhibition matters.

Previous research has identified clear differences between pigeons and rats in the suboptimal choice procedure. Pigeons behave suboptimally, preferring an alternative with discriminative stimuli and a smaller probability of reinforcement, over another with a higher probability of reinforcement, but without discriminative stimuli. In contrast, rats behave optimally showing the opposite preference. It has been proposed that these dissimilarities are consequence of a higher sensitivity to conditioned inhibition in rats than in pigeons. Alternatively, recent research suggests that differences in optimality can be accounted for by a differential incentive salience of the stimuli employed as discriminative stimuli, and that both species are suboptimal when such stimuli have high incentive salience; specifically, rats were found to be suboptimal when levers were used as discriminative stimuli. However, in the evaluation of this hypothesis, a conditioned inhibitor was not employed. In the present report, eight rats were exposed to a choice procedure that integrated both variables discussed above: a conditioned inhibitor was associated with the discriminative alternative and the stimuli had high incentive salience. A clear preference for the optimal alternative was found, suggesting that the conditioned inhibitor had a considerable impact on rats' preference, and that species-differences remain even in procedures in which the discriminative stimuli have incentive salience.

Optimal behavior by rats in a choice task is associated to a persistent conditioned inhibition effect.

When given a choice between an alternative with a low probability of reinforcement and discriminative stimuli, and another with a higher probability of reinforcement and non-discriminative stimuli, pigeons show a clear preference for the former but rats clearly prefer the later. It has been reported that pigeon's suboptimal choice is associated to a diminishing effect of the stimulus correlated with non-reinforcement. In the present paper, we explored the possibility that rats' optimal choice is more strongly influenced than pigeons' by the stimulus associated to non-reinforcement and that the effects of it do not dissipate during training. We trained rats to choose between an alternative with 0.50 probability of reinforcement and discriminative stimuli, and an alternative with 0.75 probability of reinforcement and non-discriminative stimuli. We replicated the strong preference for the optimal alternative. Then, after several sessions of training, we presented summation trials in which both the stimulus associated to reinforcement and the stimulus associated to non-reinforcement were simultaneously presented. The results showed that the stimulus associated to non-reinforcement exerted a strong effect on choice, and, more importantly, that it did not seem to dissipate across training. These results suggest that the strong difference found between pigeons and rats in the suboptimal choice procedure is potentially related to differences in the impact of conditioned inhibitors.

Rats are optimal in a choice task in which pigeons are not.

In an extensive list of studies, it has been found that pigeons prefer an alternative associated with discriminative stimuli over another associated with non-discriminative stimuli, even when the probability of reinforcement is higher in the latter. This behavior has been named "suboptimal choice". In the present experiment, we evaluated whether rats, another widely studied species within the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, also shows this behavior. We systematically replicated the procedure employed with pigeons, and found that rats are not suboptimal, i.e., they prefer the non-discriminative alternative associated with .5 probability of reinforcement, over the discriminative alternative associated with .2 probability of reinforcement. This effect occurred even though rats discriminated the contingencies of reinforcement associated with each stimulus, suggesting that rats' optimal choice was driven by the overall probability of reinforcement of each alternative. Different procedural details are offered as possibilities for explaining this apparent inter-species difference.