Marijn Kouwenhoven

Bio: Marijn Kouwenhoven is an academic researcher from University of Otago. The author has contributed to research in topics: Differential outcomes effect. The author has an hindex of 1, co-authored 2 publications receiving 3 citations.

The Differential Outcomes Effect in Pigeons (Columba livia): Is It Truly Anticipatory?

Abstract: We used delay-interval interference to investigate the nature of the differential outcomes effect (DOE) in pigeons. Birds were trained on a delayed matching-to-sample (DMS) task under either common outcome or differential outcome conditions, and then presented with visual interference during the delay period. Consistent with previous literature, the common outcomes birds were slower to learn the DMS task than the differential outcomes birds. The common outcome birds were also more impaired by the visual interference than the differential outcomes birds. Our findings are consistent with the view that the birds trained with common outcomes were likely remembering the sample stimulus during the delay period, and hence were disrupted by the visual interference, whereas the birds trained with differential outcomes were likely relying on the different emotional reactions elicited by the different outcomes to guide their choice behaviour, and hence were less affected by the visual interference. Our findings suggest that the DOE is not truly evidence of anticipatory mediation of short-term retention in pigeons, but rather emotionally driven decision making, which is not truly anticipatory in nature.

Short-Term Retest Performance in Young versus Older Adults: Consideration of Integrated Speed-Accuracy Measures.

Abstract: Objectives: The current research addressed gaps in the literature regarding short-term computerized cognitive retest performance in young and older adults using two integrated speed-accuracy metrics. The aims were: (a) to advance the aging literature on short-term retest performance using a computerized cognitive battery and a retest schedule that included both within- and between-day time points, and (b) to assess the test-retest reliability of two integrated speed-accuracy metrics, inverse efficiency scores (IES) and balanced integration scores (BIS).Method: Twenty young (18-23 years) and thirty older (65-71 years) men completed a battery measuring a range of cognitive functions, six times over three testing days, each 1 week apart.Results: Compared to young adults, older adults exhibited steeper within- and between-day performance gains in IES and BIS, which may reflect a combination of lower initial cognitive ability and familiarity, indicating that older adults may require more familiarization on computerized tests. Relative to unadjusted reaction times, IES reliability appeared comparable in older adults, but slightly lower among young adults. The reliability of BIS was lower than unadjusted reaction times and IES in both age groups.Discussion: Our findings provide guidance for researchers wanting to combine speed and accuracy into a single performance metric in repeated testing contexts.

Same same but different: Subtle but consequential differences between two measures to linearly integrate speed and accuracy (LISAS vs. BIS)

Abstract: Abstract Condition-specific speed–accuracy trade-offs (SATs) are a pervasive issue in experimental psychology, because they sometimes render impossible an unambiguous interpretation of experimental effects on either mean response times (mean RT) or percentage of correct responses (PC). For between-participants designs, we have recently validated a measure ( Balanced Integration Score , BIS ) that integrates standardized mean RT and standardized PC and thereby controls for cross-group variation in SAT. Another related measure ( Linear Integrated Speed–Accuracy Score, LISAS ) did not fulfill this specific purpose in our previous simulation study. Given the widespread and seemingly interchangeable use of the two measures, we here illustrate the crucial differences between LISAS and BIS related to their respective choice of standardization variance. We also disconfirm the recently articulated hypothesis that the differences in the behavior of the two combined performance measures observed in our previous simulation study were due to our choice of a between-participants design and we demonstrate why a previous attempt to validate BIS (and LISAS) for within-participants designs has failed, pointing out several consequential issues in the respective simulations and analyses. In sum, the present study clarifies the differences between LISAS and BIS, demonstrates that the choice of the variance used for standardization is crucial, provides further guidance on the calculation and use of BIS, and refutes the claim that BIS is not useful for attenuating condition-specific SATs in within-participants designs.

Very superstitious? A preliminary investigation of pigeons’ body position during a matching-to-sample task under differential and common outcome conditions.

Abstract: Author(s): Lord, Jessica; van der Vliet, William; Anderson, Philip; Colombo, Michael; Scarf, Damian | Abstract: The delayed matching-to-sample (DMS) task is widely employed to assess memory in a range of non-human animals. On the standard “common outcomes” (CO) DMS task, correct performance following either sample stimulus results in reinforcement. In contrast, on a “differential outcomes” (DO) DMS task, the outcome following either sample stimulus is different. One of the most consistent findings in the comparative literature is that performance under a DO condition is superior to that under a CO condition. The superior performance is attributed to the fact the DO condition enhances memory for the sample stimulus by tagging each sample with a discrete reward. Here, we investigate an alternative possibility, that pigeons use positional mediation during the delay under DO, but not CO, conditions. To test this, we tracked the head position of pigeons performing a DO (n = 4) or CO (n = 4) task. Consistent with the positional mediation account, all subjects in the DO condition displayed evidence of positional mediation. Surprisingly, positional mediation was not unique to subjects in the DO condition, with subjects in the CO condition also displaying evidence of mediation.n