An avian experimental environment for the study of social behavior

Physiology & Behavior, Vol. 17, pp. 873--876. Pergamon

Press and Brain Research Publ., 1976. Printed in the U.S.A.

BRIEF COMMUNICATION An Avian Experimental Environment for the Study of Social Behavior 1 W. J. MILLARD

Biopsychology Program, Department o f Psychology, University o f Massachusetts Amherst MA 01002 and THOMAS M. AUSTIN

Department o f Psychology, Dickinson College Carlisle, PA 17013 (Received 17 February 1976) MILLARD, W. J. AND T. M. AUSTIN. An avian experimental environment for the study of social behavior. PHYSIOL. BEHAV. 17(5)873-876, 1976. - A multiple purpose experimental environment is described that allows the study of the behavior of two pigeons within the same space. The three simple modifications provide for the independent presentation of pellet reinforcers and visual stimuli to each bird as well as the visual and automatic monitoring of behavior. Apparatus

Avian social behavior

Behavioral pharmacology

Stimulus control

141-15) they may be easily adapted to other commercial or custom designs. The first alteration required the division of the experimental space into two compartments (each 36 cm high x 30 cm wide x 17 cm deep). This was accomplished by cutting two pieces of plywood (1.0 cm thick) that were friction-fitted against (a) the rear wall (35.0 cm high x 35.0 cm wide) opposite the intelligence panel and, (b) the wall (35.0 cm high x 29.5 cm wide) opposite the cubicle door. A Plexiglass partition (32.5 cm high x 29.5 cm wide x 0.3 cm thick) was then hinged at two points on the vertical midline of the wall opposite the intelligence panel. The moving edge of the partition was held by a wing nut assembly affixed to the midline of the intelligence panel below the grain feeder opening. This arrangement allowed stable positioning of the partition during experimental sessions and rapid introduction and removal of the innermost bird. Drill holes (0.5 cm) in the wood panel over the exhaust fan port preserved normal air exchange. It should be noted that the Plexiglass partition was less than the maximal height and width, leaving approximately 1.0 cm at the floor and ceiling and 0.5 cm at the intelligence panel. This reduced obstruction of air circulation and the masking white noise. As indicated in Fig. 1, a camera port in the right side of the rear wall provided a perspective for direct or video remote viewing of the areas surrounding both response discs

HISTORICALLY the methods and instrumentation associated with research on operant behavior have provided precise experimental control and measurement [2,4]. Such precision has encouraged the use of these methods in diverse behavioral and physiological research programs [4]. One area of notable suitability has been the experimental analysis of stimulus control. That is, the control of acquired behavior as a function of antecedent and concurrent stimuli [5,6]. Much of this research has included the pigeon as a subject and a visual stimulus dimension (e.g., intensity, wavelength, or pattern). The object of the present methods was an interest in the development of procedures for the experimental analysis of the stimulus properties of conspecific behavior. Such procedures would then be applicable to the analysis of the effects of diverse physiological and pharmacological manipulations on social behavior [1, 7,8]. This report describes modifications of a standard single bird experimental environment that allows the independent and selective presentation of pellet reinforcers and visual stimuli, as well as the direct observation and measurement of the birds' behavior. MODIFICATIONS Though the following modifications are with reference to a BRS/LVE Small Universal Cubicle (Model 131-02) fitted with a BRS/LVE Pigeon Intelligence Panel (Model

The authors acknowledge W. Kirk Richardson who suggested the adaptation of the pellet feeder to this research and the helpful comments of John W. Donahoe. Reprint requests should be sent to W. J. Millard. 873

874

MILLARD AND AUSTIN 34cm ....

ii .,

I,ESPONS l °'sc

II 36cm

PROJECTOR

\

I

j

FEEDER/

i

RESPONSE ItIt / t_ DISC

% PARTI TION

-r

i | ...... i

|

I

CAMERA f PORT

II

FEEDER

i

I I I

FEEDER OPENING

I

I I

I

I I

I

I o

I I 0

FIG. 1. Diagram of the modified experimental environment (right wall is the cubicle door).

I

o

I I I I I

f5 CUBICLE

CEILING

I

I I

o

I I

I

STABILIZED

i

!

I

TUBE

o

FROM i~

I

PELLET DISPENSER

RESPONSE 1~ DISC

I

!

L

DEFLECTION

L"]-I. I'LATE

PELLET

.................. ~ T R O U G H

I 0 I

1 I

2 I

I

3 CM i

FIG. 2. Diagram of the pellet feeder (placement is shown for the left side).

I

I

I

I I|

t t t

roUT

| | i| | II| II |II II II| |

Xt

t t

t

t

t

t

t t

|

t

'~

PARTITION

g | i e e II i i i e| gR n| ie B m | a

t

t t

t t t

t

t

t t t t t

t t t

|

t

I

n t

n

t

|

I

|

t

|

I

I|

|

t|

FIG. 3. Overhead view of left compartment. Space between the dotted lines represents the conically shaped area, within which the bird could view the stimulus behind the response disc. a n d pellet feeders. When n o t in use this o p e n i n g was o c c l u d e d b y a cover plate. I n d e p e n d e n t delivery of pellet r e i n f o r c e r s (45 mg, P. J. Noyes Co.) was e n a b l e d b y the use of t w o B R S / L V E pellet dispensers (Modle PDC-002) m o u n t e d o n t h e e x t e r i o r of the cubicle. Each was c o n n e c t e d to a pellet feeder (see Fig. 2). Briefly, these consisted of an a l u m i n u m t u b e t h a t passed f r o m t h e dispenser, t h r o u g h a hole in the ceiling o f t h e cubicle, to an a t t a c h e d pellet t r o u g h of m a c h i n e d a l u m i n u m and Plexiglass. The distance f r o m the t r o u g h to the l o w e r edge of the r e s p o n s e disc was held at 4.5 cm b y a set screw in the a l u m i n u m stabilizer plate. An a d j u s t a b l e d e f l e c t i o n plate over the t u b e o p e n i n g guided t h e pellet to the trough. The feeder assembly was held in place b y a single bolt a n d wing n u t t h r o u g h t h e stabilizer a n d the cubicle ceiling. When in place, the left edge of the stabilizer o n the right pellet feeder also served

AVIAN SOCIAL BEHAVIOR

875

1~O

•

x uJ

a Z

•

.7s gll I

=t=J~e, ,t"

",:eO-%o % ,

:..'.

..

oo • , AA •

,,~8o •

.:

z .50

rleOo

6 •O 66

•

16

J

< z = U

PI

*

P3

•

P5

•

iIn

.2s

a CONDITION

I

:n~

CONDITION

,, I

leo

I

2S

CONDITION

2 *A

te SO

75

I

I

12$

150

SESSION

FIG. 4. Discrimination indices for the three experimental birds.

as an upper support for the Plexiglas partition. Complete removal of either feeder required less than 5 sec. The third modification of the standard environment allowed the independent presentation of visual stimuli behind the transparent response disc of each bird, while limiting visibility of such stimuli to the ipsilateral bird. This was achieved by reducing the normal projection area of the BRS/LVE In-Line Projectors (Model IC-901/111-06) from 2.5 cm to 0.5 cm. The projectors were additionally moved 3.0 cm behind the response discs by use of longer retaining bolts and spacers. Further control was obtained by introducing a 1.75 cm aperture directly behind each response disc. The result of these alterations was the reduction of the conically shaped space, within which the bird could view the stimulus, to an angle of approximately 26 deg (see Fig. 3). This modified environment may then be controlled by standard electromechanical, solid-state, or on-line computer systems. Flexible use of the cubicle is preserved by rapid (less than 5 min) transitions from single bird to multiple bird use, or vice versa. AN APPLICATION An illustrative experiment explored the acquisition of a success---qve discrimination by birds wherein the stimuli were animate behaviors of other birds. Six White Carneaux pigeons, reduced to 85 percent of their free-feeding weights, were individually trained to readily eat pellets from the feeder and then peck a disc for intermittent reinforcers. Pairs of birds were then simultaneously exposed to two-component multiple schedules that either intermittently reinforced high disc-pecking rates (tand VI 45-sec DRH 1-sec) or intermittently reinforced behaviors other

than disc pecking (tand VI 35-sec DRO 12-sec) (3). For the "stimulus" bird in each pair visual stimuli were differentially correlated with the two components of the multiple schedule. Thus, these hue'stimuli projected behind the disc of this bird came to control the peck response. The second or "experimental" bird was presented a constant hue behind the disc. Therefore, the only stimuli in the experimental birds' environment that were correlated with the components of the multiple schedule were the behaviors of the stimulus birds. In Condition 1 the experimental birds were exposed to the VI-DRH or the VI-DRO schedules, while the stimulus birds were simultaneously exposed to the VI-DRO or the VI-DRH schedules, respectively. Condition 2 was a simple reversal of this relationship with both birds simultaneously exposed to either the VI-DRH or the VI-DRO schedules. Each pair of birds received fifty 80-min sessions of Condition 1 and then Condition 2, and finally were returned to Condition 1 for fifty additional sessions. The three stimulus birds rapidly attained asymptotic discrimination performance as evidenced by a high mean rate of pecking in the VI-DRH component and an essentially zero mean rate of pecking in the VI-DRO component. A discrimination index (percent of total pecks emitted in the VI-DRH component) was equal to or greater than 0.99 for the remaining 130 sessions. Discrimination indices for the three experimental birds are shown for the entire 150 sessions in Fig. 4. Clear evidence for acquisition of the discrimination and subsequent reversals may be seen. In summary, these modifications and experimental procedures provide a precise means of assessing diverse behavioral, physiological, and pharmacological manipulations on a synthetic avian social interaction.

REFERENCES

1. Dews, P. B. Assessing the effects of drugs. In: Methods in Psychobiology, edited by R. D. Meyers. New York: Academic Press, 1972, pp 83-124. 2. Dinsmoor, J. A. Operant conditioning. In: Experimental Methods and Instrumentation in Psychology, edited by J. B. Sidowski. New York: McGraw-Hill,1966, pp. 421-449.

3. Ferster, C. B. and B. F. Skinner. Schedules of Reinforcement. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1957. 4. Honig, W. K. Operant Behavior: Areas of Research and Application. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1966.

876 5. Nevin, J. A. Stimulus control. In: The Study of Behavior, edited by J. A. Nevin. Glenview, II1.: Scott, Foresman & Co., 1973, pp. 115-148. 6. Terrace, H. S. Stimulus control. In: Operant Behavior: Areas of Research and Appplication, edited by W. K. Honig. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1966, pp. 271-344. 7. Valzelli, L. Social experience as a determinant of normal behavior and drug response. In: Behavioral Pharmacology in Animals, edited by L. L. Iversen, S. D. Iversen, and S. H. Snyder. New York: Plenum Press, in press.

M I L L A R D AND A U S T I N 8. Vowles, D. M. and L. B. Beazley. The neural substrate of emotional behavior in birds. In: Birds: Brain and Behavior, edited by I. J. Goodman and M. W. Schein. New York: Academic Press, 1974, pp. 221-258.