text:
What Suboptimal Choice Tells Us About the Control of Behavior
Comparative Cognition
& B e h a v i o r R e v i e w s
What Suboptimal Choice Tells Us About
the Control of Behavior
Thomas R. Zentall
When animals make decisions that are suboptimal, it helps us to identify the processes that have
evolved to produce this behavior. In an earlier article, I discussed three examples of suboptimal
choice or bias (Zentall, 2016): (a) sunk cost, the tendency to continue on a losing project because
of the amount already invested; (b) unskilled gambling, in which the loss is greater than the return;
and (c) justification of effort, the bias to prefer conditioned stimuli that in training required more
effort to obtain. Here I discuss three additional examples of suboptimal choice that we have studied
in animals: (a) when less is better, in which animals prefer one piece of food (one preferred item)
over two pieces of food (one preferred item plus one less preferred item); (b) suboptimal choice on
the ephemeral choice task, in which animals prefer one piece of food now over two pieces of the
same food, one now but the second briefly delayed; and (c) suboptimal choice in the midsession
reversal task, errors of anticipation and perseveration. Each of these examples may help to identify
the relative limits on behavioral flexibility found when animals are exposed to conditions that
may be different from those that they would normally encounter in their natural environment.
They also may help us to understand the origins of similar behavior when it occurs in humans.
Keywords: suboptimal choice, less is better, ephemeral reward, midsession reversal
Those of us who study the behavior of animals assume that they have evolved to maximize their success (e.g., at finding food), and much of learning theory (Skinner, 1938; Thorndike, 1911) is based on this prem-ise. Animals select those responses that lead to the increased probability of reinforcement over those that do not. When animals' behavior is consistent with this theory, it strengthens our belief in the validity of the theory. However, when animals show a preference for alternatives that result in less food over those that result in more food, it is important to try to understand why they do.
COMPARATIVE COGNITION & BEHAVIOR REVIEWS for one kind of food over another may reverse if it has been sated on the preferred food, or an animal that has a choice between eating and being with conspecifics may choose the latter because being close to others may enhance feeding rate or may offer safety from predation (Kacelnik, 2006). Alternatively, the condition that the animal is in may cause it to choose less food over more food. For example, an animal may choose a low proba-bility but possibly larger amount of food over a frequent but smaller amount of food but one that will not allow it to survive through the night (Stephens, 1981; see also Houston, McNamara, & Steer, 2007).
When animals prefer an alternative that provides them with less food over one that provides them with more (i.e., they choose suboptimally), on one hand, it may cause us to question the processes that underlie that behavior. In an earlier article in this journal (Zentall, 2016), I described a task in which pigeon showed a strong preference for one alternative that on 20% of the trials provided them with a signal for reinforcement and on 80% of the trials provided them with a signal for the absence of reinforcement, over a second alternative that always provided them with a signal for 50% reinforce-ment (Stagner & Zentall, 2010). With this procedure, not only do pigeons quickly show a preference for the 20% signaled over the 50% unsignaled reinforcement but they show no evidence that they learn to correct that ence with extensive training. Furthermore, that prefer-ence is not simply controlled by the uncertainty of the reinforcement associated with the higher probability of reinforcement alternative, because even when the alter-natives are between 50% signaled reinforcement and 100% reinforcement, pigeons do not show a preference for the optimal alternative (McDevitt, Dunn, Spetch, & Ludvig, 2016; Smith & Zentall, 2016). In addition, a similar pattern of suboptimal choice can be shown when reinforcement magnitude is manipulated. For example, pigeons prefer a 20% chance of obtaining a signal for 10 pellets of food over a 100% chance of obtaining a signal for three pellets of food (Zentall & Stagner, 2011).
When animals choose suboptimally, it may tell us something about the natural environment in which the animals have evolved (Fortes, Pinto, Machado, & Vasconcelos, 2018). Several mechanisms may be
responsible for this suboptimal choice. First, in nature, when an animal approaches a stimulus that signals the presence of food, it is likely that the probability of rein-forcement will increase. Not so in this choice task in which choice frequency has no effect on the probabil-ity of reinforcement. Second, in nature, when an animal encounters a signal for the absence of food, that signal can generally be ignored, because the animal will simply reject it and look elsewhere for food (Fortes et al., 2018; Vasconcelos, Machado, & Pandeirada, 2018). That is, in nature there is no need to remain in its presence, so it does not acquire inhibitory value, whereas the animal must remain in its presence in the laboratory choice experiment.
Although the predictive value of the conditioned reinforcer that follows choice of each alternative, inde-pendent of its probability of occurrence, appears to predict choice (Smith & Zentall, 2016), evidence suggests that there may be a third factor (Case & Zentall, 2018; McDevitt et al., 2016). Case and Zentall (2018) found that when pigeons are given a choice between 50% signaled reinforcement and 100% reinforcement, they initially show indifference between the two alternatives; however, with continued training they show a significant prefer-ence for the suboptimal alternative (see also Kendall, 1974). Case and Zentall suggested that the preference for the suboptimal alternative may result from positive contrast between the expected value of reinforcement following choice of the suboptimal alternative and the value of the conditioned reinforcer that follows on half of the trials. Positive contrast would not be expected between choice of the optimal alternative and the condi-tioned reinforcer that follows, because the expected value of reinforcement is consistent with the value of reinforcement that follows. A similar mechanism was suggested by McDevitt et al. (2016), who proposed that the conditioned reinforcement that followed choice of the suboptimal alternative represented "good news," whereas the conditioned reinforcement that followed choice of the optimal alternative was not newsworthy. Although identifying the predispositions responsible for suboptimal choice with this procedure will likely require further research, the inability of the pigeons to learn to choose optimally suggests that there are conditions under which pigeons do not appear to have the flexibil-ity to overcome these predispositions.
In the earlier article (Zentall, 2016), I identified two other cases in which pigeons fail to choose optimally. The first was research on the sunk cost effect in which pigeons prefer to complete pecking on one reinforcement Author Note: Thomas R. Zentall, Department of Psychology,
University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40506-0044.
schedule over changing to another reinforcement sched-ule, even though changing to the other schedule would have reduced the time and effort (amount of pecking) to reinforcement. For example, pigeons first learned to peck 30 times for food when the color was green and 10 times for food when the color was red. They then learned that after pecking green a variable number of times, they would be given a choice between complet-ing the pecks to green and switchcomplet-ing to peck the red 10 times. Surprisingly, the pigeons preferred to return to pecking green, even when returning to green required as many as 25 more pecks (Pattison, Zentall, & Wata-nabe, 2012; see also Magalhães & White, 2014; Navarro & Fantino, 2005).
The second additional line of research described in the Zentall (2016) article actually involved a bias rather than a suboptimality. Pigeons were trained to peck a light to receive a choice between two colors. On some trials, a single peck was required and the choice was between, for example, red and yellow and choice of red was reinforced. On other trials, 20 pecks were required and the choice was between, for example, green and blue and choice of green was reinforced. On probe trials, pigeons were given a choice between red and green, the two colors both associated with reinforcement. Surpris-ingly, the pigeons showed a preference for green, the color that during training they had to work harder to obtain. When a similar effect has been found in humans (e.g., Aronson & Mills, 1959), it has been referred to as the justification of effort effect; however, we prefer to interpret this preference as a contrast effect. That is, the positive contrast between 20 pecks and green was greater than the positive contrast between one peck and red.
In the present article I examine three additional phenomena, each of which demonstrates a behavior that is suboptimal. The first is commonly referred to as the less is better effect; the second is the failure to learn to choose optimally on a task in which choice of one alter-native provides two reinforcements, whereas the other provides only one (the ephemeral reward task); and the third is the failure to choose optimally on the midses-sion reversal task.
The Less Is Better Effect
Economists have traditionally held that when humans are given sufficient information, they generally make rational choices (Persky, 1995). This is the basis of rational choice theory (Becker, 1976). However, Tversky and Kahneman (1974) challenged this notion by showing
that humans tend to use various affective heuristics in making decisions and those heuristics can be shown to lead to suboptimal decisions. Such an example is the less is better effect (sometimes referred to as the less is more effect), demonstrated in several experiments by Hsee (1998). In one example, Hsee asked subjects to estimate the value of a set of 24 dishes, all in good condition, or to estimate the value of a set of 40 dishes, but only 31 were in good condition. Surprisingly, the set of 24 dishes was valued higher than the set of 40 dishes. Apparently, the nine dishes of poor quality depreciated the value of the 31 good-quality dishes. The average quality of the set, as a whole, apparently overshadowed the objective judgment of the value of the set. But this effect may be unique to humans, who may be sensitive to the aesthet-ics of the two sets of dishes.
In another study, subjects were asked to imagine that a friend had given them a $55 wool coat from a store where coats cost between $50 and $500, or alterna-tively a $45 wool scarf from a store where scarves cost between $5 and $50 (Hsee, 1998). The subjects said that they would be happier with the scarf than with the coat because the purchase of the scarf would reflect greater generosity than the purchase of the coat. The scarf was at the high end of the range, whereas the coat was at the low end of the range. This finding suggests that if gift givers want their gift recipients to perceive them as generous, it would be better for them to give a high-value item from a low-value product category (e.g., a $45 scarf) than a low-value item from a high-value product cate-gory (e.g., a $55 coat).
Would animals show the same bias if food of differ-ent quality was used rather than dishes or clothing?
According to optimal foraging theory (Stephens & Krebs, 1986), other factors being equal (e.g., the possi-bility of predation), nature should select against any tendency to prefer an alternative that provides less food.
Kralik, Xu, Knight, Khan, and Levine (2012) tested this hypothesis. They found that monkeys readily would eat grapes and sliced cucumbers, but when offered a choice between them, they preferred the grapes. When the monkeys were offered a choice between a grape by itself or a grape and a slice of cucumber, however, they gener-ally showed a strong preference for the grape alone.
COMPARATIVE COGNITION & BEHAVIOR REVIEWS less preferred piece of apple (Sanchez-Amaro, Pereto, & Call, 2016). And when Beran, Evans, and Ratliff (2009) manipulated the quantity rather than the quality of the combined option, four chimpanzees preferred a 20 g slice of banana over the same 20 g slice of banana plus an additional 5 g slice of banana.
Dogs, too, have been found to show a less is better effect (Pattison & Zentall, 2014). Several dogs were found to eat a slice of carrot or a slice of cheese, but when given a choice, they preferred the cheese. However, when given a choice between the cheese and a combina-tion of the cheese and the carrot, these dogs preferred the cheese alone (see Figure 1).
When a similar experiment was conducted with pigeons, the results were less clear (Zentall, Laude, Case, & Daniels, 2014, Experiment 1). Although all of the pigeons would readily eat milo seeds and dried peas (both a part of their normal laboratory diet), they strongly preferred the peas. In Experiment 1, the pigeons were kept at a typical level of food restriction (they were fed once a day, and when tested they had not eaten in about 24 hours) and were given a choice between one pea and a pea together with a milo seed. Unlike the monkeys and the dogs, however, the pigeons preferred the milo
plus the pea over the pea alone. That is, they chose opti-mally, two bits of food over one.
Although one might be tempted to conclude that the difference between the pigeons and the dogs and primates reflected species differences in their suscepti-bility to the less is better effect, we first looked for differ-ences in the experimental conditions. Both the monkeys and dogs were minimally deprived of food (for both species, the food presented represented special treats). For the pigeons, however, the experimental proce-dures followed a longer period without food. Perhaps the species differences had to do with the subjects' rela-tive level of motivation. Thus, in a follow-up experiment (Zentall et al., 2014, Experiment 2), the level of food deprivation was manipulated. Once again, the pigeons that were about 24 hours food deprived failed to show the less is better effect. However, pigeons that were food deprived for only 4 hr showed a reliable less is better effect (Figure 2).
These results paint a more nuanced picture of the less is better effect. Based on the results with pigeons, the average quality of the food offered affects choice when the animals have been deprived of food for a rela-tively short time, but when food deprivation is greater,
optimal choice based on the quantity of food in each alternative appears to control choice. Of interest, in the experiment with dogs, one of the dogs failed to show the less is better effect (see Figure 1), and of all of the dogs, that dog had been an adult rescue originally picked up as a stray. Although none of the dogs had experi-enced extreme deprivation prior to the experiment, it is likely that the dog that failed to show the less is better effect had been food insecure for some time in its life prior to being put up for adoption. Thus, in addition to the animals' current level of food deprivation, prior experience with high levels of food deprivation may lessen the likelihood of finding the less is better effect (Zentall et al., 2014, Experiment 2). It would be interest-ing to know if humans, too, would choose optimally if the stakes were higher.
The Ephemeral Reward Task
In the ephemeral reward task, animals are given a choice between two alternatives, each of which is asso-ciated with a similar piece of food. The contingency is such, however, that if alternative A is selected, reinforce-ment follows and the trial is over, but if alternative B is selected, reinforcement follows and the subject can be reinforced for responding to alternative A. Thus, choice of alternative B results in twice as much food as alter-native A. This task was originally studied with wrasse
(cleaner fish) as a model of their foraging behavior on a reef, their natural habitat (Bshary & Grutter, 2002). Wrasse obtain food by cleaning the mouths of larger fish. Some of the fish that they service live on the reef and are relatively permanent, whereas other fish that they service are visitors to the reef and they must be serviced quickly, before they swim away. The ephemeral reward task is assumed to be analogous to foraging on the reef: Choice to service a visiting fish (analogous to choice of alternative B) means that the wrasse can also service the resident fish (alternative A), whereas first servicing the fish on the reef (alternative A) may lead to the loss of being able to service the visitor (alternative B).
The hypothesis that this task is a model of the wrasses' reef-foraging behavior was tested by comparing the performance of this task by wrasse to that of several primate species (Salwiczek et al., 2012). Consistent with the model, the wrasse learned to choose alternative B readily, whereas monkeys and orangutans did not learn to choose alternative B reliably within 100 trials, and only two of four chimpanzees learned to do so.
Although differences in species-typical foraging behavior may explain the unexpected differences in species ability to readily acquire the optimal choice of B over A, other hypotheses have been proposed. Pepper-berg and Hartsfield (2014) proposed that if the rapid acquisition of this task was determined by the species' natural foraging behavior, parrots, which live in an
COMPARATIVE COGNITION & BEHAVIOR REVIEWS environment similar to primates and eat similar food (e.g., fruit, nuts, and berries), also should have difficulty acquiring this task. However, Pepperberg and Hartsfield found that the parrots acquired the ephemeral reward task at about the same rate as the wrasse. Pepperberg and Hartsfield suggested that the difference in learning between primates and fish or parrots might be attribut-able to way each species chooses the alternatives. Fish and parrots choose with their mouth (or beak), whereas primates choose with their hands. Why choosing with the hand would make the task difficult is not clear, but the presence of two bits of food and having two hands with which to choose may result in conflict (e.g., trying to choose both A and B at the same time) that would not be present with a single possible choice response.
The results with parrots led us to test this theory further with pigeons and also with rats. According to the theory proposed by Pepperberg and Hartsfield, pigeons should quickly learn to choose optimally with this task, whereas the rats should not.
The results with pigeons were quite surprising (Zentall, Case, & Luong, 2016). Not only were the pigeons not able to learn to reliably choose alterna-tive B (the one that gave them two pieces of food), but they consistently showed a significant preference for
alternative A (the one that gave them only one). The preference for alternative A was particularly unexpected because such a bias indicates that there was some learn-ing about the task contlearn-ingencies but they were different from the ones intended by the design of the task.
The reason that the pigeons chose suboptimally may be related to the differential frequency of reinforcement associated with the two alternatives. If one assumes that initially the pigeons chose randomly between the two alternatives, they would have had more experience with alternative A. In fact, they would have experienced the reinforcement associated with alternative A on every trial, whereas they would have experienced the rein-forcement associated with alternative B only if they had chosen B first. Furthermore, every trial ended with rein-forcement associated with alternative A, so even when B was chosen, the last alternative experienced was always A (see the design of the control group in Figure 3).
To test this hypothesis, we used an operant version of the task in which alternatives A and B were represented by colors projected on response keys (Zentall et al., 2016, Experiment 3). Once again, we arranged the contingen-cies such that the choice of A provided reinforcement but ended the trial, whereas the choice of B provided reinforcement and allowed a second reinforcement for
responding to A. To test the hypothesis that the prefer-ence for alternative A resulted from the fact that there were more reinforced responses to alternative A than reinforced responses to alternative B, for the experimen-tal group, choice of alternative B provided reinforce-ment; while the pigeons were eating, the color of alter-native B changed to a different color (C), and a peck to C provided the second reinforcement (see the design of this experiment in Figure 3). Thus, for the experimen-tal group, initial random choice would still provide one reinforcer for the choice of A and two reinforcers for the choice of B, but it would also equate reinforcement that followed a response to each of the three colors. The results indicated that relative to a control group that replicated the original significant preference for the choice of alternative A, the experimental group chose alternative B significantly more. However, the exper-imental group did not actually show a preference for alternative B, as did the fish and parrots; rather, they were indifferent about the two alternatives.
Given that the pigeons did not show the optimal performance shown by the parrots and fish, when we trained rats on the original task, it was not surprising that the rats failed to acquire the task either (Zentall, Case, & Berry, 2017b). Although the rats did not learn to choose alternative B reliably, neither did they show the significant preference for alternative A shown by the pigeons. Instead, they showed indifference about the two alternatives.
The puzzle remained to understand why some species appear to be unable to learn to choose alterna-tive B, the option that provides them with two pieces of food over alternative A, which provides them with only one. The puzzle is reminiscent of research on delay discounting, the choice between an immediate small amount of food and a delayed larger amount of food (Ainslie, 1974). In delayed discounting, it should be noted that the preference that most animals show for the suboptimal smaller-sooner alternative is another exam-ple of suboptimal choice that has been extensively stud-ied (see Estle, Green, Myerson, & Holt, 2007; Mazur, 1997). In the ephemeral reward task, although the imme-diate consequences of choosing option A or B is exactly the same, the delayed consequence of choosing alterna-tive B is additional food.
Delay discounting is often viewed somewhat nega-tively as a sign of the lack of self-control; however, in nature it may be a functional choice. In natural envi-ronments the "promise" of a larger later reward is often accompanied by a reduction in the probability of rein-forcement, because any reinforcer that is delayed is less certain due to both intraspecies and extraspecies compe-tition. Furthermore, for most species, delay implies travel time, and travel may increase the chances of encounter-ing a predator or a more dominant conspecific. Thus, what is generally considered an impulsive response to a smaller-sooner reward, under natural conditions may actually be quite adaptive. In the ephemeral reward task,
COMPARATIVE COGNITION & BEHAVIOR REVIEWS however, the delay between the first reinforcement and the second reinforcement for choice of the B alternative is relatively short (perhaps only 1 s in the case of the manual presentation of the two alternatives and only about two seconds in the case of the operant analog). Nevertheless, in the ephemeral reward task, presen-tation of the second reinforcement does not appear to become associated with choice of alternative B. From the subject's perspective, it is as if the choice of either alterna-tive results in a common outcome, immediate reinforce-ment, and a second reinforcer sometimes appears myste-riously and independently of the alternative chosen.
One way to encourage the association of the second reinforcer with choice of alternative B may be to use a procedure developed by Rachlin and Green (1972) to miti-gate the effects of delay discounting. Rachlin and Green found that pigeons that preferred a smaller immediate reinforcer over a larger later reinforcer would choose optimally if the pigeons would make a "commitment" to the larger-later reinforcer at a time prior to the actual choice. They gave pigeons a choice between (a) having a choice 8 s later between the smaller-sooner reinforcer and larger-later reinforcer and (b) being forced to have access to only the larger-later alternative (see Figure 4). Of interest, although the larger-later option was available independent of their initial choice, the pigeons preferred
the option that did not give them a second choice. Appar-ently, by choosing not to be able to select the smaller-sooner reward later, they could avoid the "temptation" to choose the smaller-sooner alternative.
This prior commitment procedure has implications for humans who are trying to avoid impulsive decision making (see Laibson, 1997). For example, to discourage oneself from smoking, at a time when the urge to smoke is not great, one can commit to refrain from smoking at a later time by not having cigarettes available and possibly making them difficult to obtain (e.g., going on a camping trip). Similarly, the pigeons chose not to have the smaller-sooner alternative available even after the short 8-s wait.
In the suboptimal choice task studied by Spetch, Belke, Barnet, Dunn, and Pierce (1990) and others, in which pigeons were given a choice between 50% signaled reinforcement and 100% reinforcement, McDevitt, Spetch, and Dunn (1997) examined the effect of insert-ing a delay between choice and the signals that followed. They found that when a dark gap occurred following choice but before the onset of the stimuli that signaled reinforcement or its absence, pigeons tended to choose optimally. More recently, Zentall, Andrews, and Case (2017) extended the duration of the chosen stimulus for 20 s following choice and found a similar preference for
the optimal alternative. Delaying the onset of the signals for reinforcement (or its absence) following choice can be thought of as making a commitment, some time prior to the appearance of the signals for reinforcement (or its absence).
If we apply something like the commitment proce-dure to the ephemeral reward task, it would suggest that inserting a delay between the initial choice and the first reinforcer may encourage the pigeons choose optimally. Specifically, it would encourage the pigeons to associate the second reinforcer with the initial choice of alterna-tive B. Using the operant procedure, we (Zentall, Case, & Berry, 2017a) gave the pigeons a choice between the A and B alternatives. Once a pigeon made its choice, the other stimulus turned off and a fixed-interval 20-s sched-ule was in effect (the first response after 20 s provided reinforcement). If alternative A had been selected, rein-forcement was provided and the trial was over. If alter-native B had been selected, following reinforcement, alternative A was presented again and only a single peck was required to provide a second reinforcement. Once again, the control group that did not have the 20-s delay between choice and reinforcement showed a significant preference for alternative A. The experimental group, however, learned to choose optimally (see Figure 5).
Given the success that we found with pigeons learn-ing to choose optimally with a delay inserted between choice and the first reinforcement (Zentall et al., 2017a) we tried a similar procedure with rats and found that they too learned to choose optimally when we inserted a 20-s delay (fixed-interval 20-s schedule) between their first choice and the first reinforcer (Zentall et al., 2017b). Thus, the insertion of a delay between choice and the first reward appears to have some generality.
But why is it that the wrasse and parrots choose opti-mally with this task without the delay inserted between choice and reinforcement? In the case of the wrasse, it is likely that impulsive choice would not be adaptive. Impulsively swimming into the mouth of a large fish could have unfortunate consequences. Thus, in general, cautiously approaching a potential reinforcer may be prudent. Furthermore, the wrasse appear to use a tactile dancing behavior as a signal to avoid being eaten (Grut-ter, 2004). It is also quite possible that the client fish gives the wrasse an indication that it is safe to begin cleaning. In the case of parrots, the three parrots that were used by Pepperberg and Hartsfield (2014) had received extensive training for several years and may have learned, generally, to avoid choosing impulsively. One parrot had been involved in several studies on
comparative cognition and interspecies communication, and the other two had received considerable training on referential communication. Extensive prior training may reduce impulsivity in general and enable animals to associate the two reinforcers that follow choice of the B alternative.
Recent research with monkeys has found that they, too, learned to choose optimally when the foods that they were choosing were distinctively colored (one pink, the other black; Prétôt, Bshary, & Brosnan, 2016b, Experiment 2). Why distinctive coloring would facili-tate acquisition is not obvious, but the unusual color of the food may have made the monkeys choose more care-fully (i.e., it may have reduced the monkeys' tendency to choose impulsively).
In another experiment, when the rewards were hidden under distinctive cups that the monkeys had to lift or point to, they also chose optimally (Prétôt, Bshary,
& Brosnan, 2016b, Experiment 3). That is, the rewards
were not immediately visible, a change that may have reduced impulsivity.
In another experiment with monkeys, a computer version of the task was used in which the monkeys had to move a cursor to the chosen stimulus to receive the reward at a different location (Prétôt, Bshary, &
Bros-nan, 2016a). It may be that this spatial and temporal
delay was sufficient to reduce the monkeys' impulsivity. Impulsivity may not be the only factor that distin-guishes the conditions under which animals choose suboptimally in the ephemeral reward task. It is likely that further research will be needed to disentangle the variables that contribute to this phenomenon.
The Midsession Reversal Task
The midsession reversal task is a variation of the serial reversal task in which a simple simultane-ous discrimination is acquired and is then repeatedly reversed (see, e.g., Mackintosh, McGonigle, Holgate, & Vanderver, 1968). The goal of the serial reversal task is to determine how much an organism can benefit from the experience of successive reversals (i.e., how much it can learn to learn). Ideally, such a task may lead to the development of a win–stay/lose–shift strategy in which a reversal results in only a single error.
COMPARATIVE COGNITION & BEHAVIOR REVIEWS 40 trials of an 80-trial session). That is, from Trial 1 to Trial 40, S1 is correct and S2 is incorrect, whereas from Trial 41 to Trial 80, S2 is correct and S1 is incorrect. Surprisingly, even after considerable training (e.g., 50 sessions), pigeons make many more errors than what would be optimal (Rayburn-Reeves, Molet, & Zentall, 2011). Specifically, pigeons continue to make anticipa-tory errors by choosing S2 as the reversal approaches, as well as making perseverative errors by choosing S1 after the reversal has occurred (see Figure 6). In fact, the function displayed in Figure 6 appears much like a psychophysical timing function that one might see following training on a temporal discrimination, when testing with stimulus durations between the two training durations (e.g., Stubbs, 1976). That is, it appears that the pigeons are attempting to time the point in the session when the reversal will take place. This hypothesis has been confirmed by research in which, following train-ing, pigeons were tested with longer and shorter inter-trial intervals, thus causing the time from the start of the session to the reversal to either increase or decrease, respectively (McMillan & Roberts, 2012; Smith, Beck-mann, & Zentall, 2017). When the intertrial interval is increased, the pigeons begin to reverse sooner in the
session (after fewer trials); when the intertrial interval is reduced, the pigeons begin to reverse later in the session.
It is surprising that the pigeons would attempt to time from the start of the session to the reversal, because that time would be somewhat variable, as it would depend on the rate with which the pigeons proceed through the trials. More important, the pigeons have a more reliable cue for the reversal available—the choice and consequence of the choice from the preceding trial(s). Specifically, if their previous choice was correct, it generally provides a cue to choose it again, whereas if it was not correct, it should serve as a cue to choose the other stimulus (i.e., such a strategy would result in the development of a win–stay/lose–shift strategy). Surpris-ingly, when the point in the session in which the rever-sal occurs is made unpredictable (i.e., it varies randomly from session to session), the pigeons' accuracy is not any better (Rayburn-Reeves et al., 2011). In fact, when by chance the reversal comes early in the session, pigeons tend to make many more perseverative errors, and when it comes late in the session, they tend to make many more anticipatory errors. Curiously, when the reversal is unpredictable, pigeons tend to be most accurate when the reversal occurs at the middle of the session. It is as if,
during training, although the reversal is unpredictable, the pigeons average the time into the session at which the reversal occurs.
It is important to note that not all animals choose suboptimally with this task. When monkeys were trained on this task, they showed virtually no anticipatory errors,
but they did show some perseverative errors (
Rayburn-Reeves, James, & Beran, 2017). Surprisingly, rats, but not pigeons, trained on a spatial midsession reversal task (e.g., left is correct for the first 40 trials, right is correct for the next 40 trials) show near-optimal accuracy (Rayburn-Reeves, Stagner, Kirk, & Zentall, 2013). Pigeons do show near-optimal accuracy with a spatial midsession rever-sal task when the intertrial interval is very short (1.5 s); however, their accuracy can be attributed to the repeti-tive response pattern involving the location of the stim-ulus and the feeder (Laude, Stagner, Rayburn-Reeves, & Zentall, 2014). Near-optimal accuracy by the pigeons appears to result from the short intertrial interval and the spatial nature of the task, because when the task with the short intertrial intervals involved visual stimuli such that the spatial location of the correct stimulus could not be anticipated, the typical numbers of both anticipatory and perseverative errors were found (Laude et al., 2014).
The question remains why pigeons persist in attempt-ing to estimate the time from the start of the session to the midpoint of the session when the feedback from the preceding trial(s) would be a far more effective cue. One hypothesis is that they have difficulty remembering both the stimulus last chosen and the outcome of that choice, both of which would be needed to decide what to do on the next trial. The fact that reducing the duration of the intertrial interval to as short as 1.5 s did not improve accuracy on the visual discrimination form of the task suggests, however, that memory for the stimulus chosen and the resulting outcome is not likely the only problem. A more direct test of the forgetting hypothesis was conducted by Smith et al. (2017). They inserted cues during the intertrial interval that could remind the pigeon which alternative it had selected (if the stimu-lus chosen had been red, the intertrial interval was lit by a house light in the ceiling; if the stimulus chosen had been green, the intertrial interval was lit by a house light at the top of the response panel) and the outcome of that choice (if the response had been correct, the feeder light remained on throughout the intertrial interval). Although providing appropriate feedback during the intertrial interval significantly improved task accuracy,
COMPARATIVE COGNITION & BEHAVIOR REVIEWS
the pigeons continued to make both anticipatory and perseverative errors.
The results of a recent experiment by Santos, Soares, Vasconcelos, and Machado (2017) may provide a clue as to why pigeons do not perform more accurately with this task. Santos et al. compared pigeons' accuracy on the standard midsession reversal with a procedure in which correct choices of S1 were reinforced 100% of the time but correct choices of S2 were reinforced only 20% of the time. One would have expected this procedure to reduce antici-patory errors but increase perseverative errors (i.e., bias the pigeons to choose S1 both before and after the rever-sal). Not surprising, this procedure virtually eliminated anticipatory errors, but unexpectedly it did not increase perseverative errors. Thus, this manipulation resulted in a net increase in midsession reversal accuracy. In unpub-lished research, Zentall, Andrews, Case, and Peng (2019) have since replicated this effect (see Figure 7). Paradoxi-cally, reducing the overall probability of reinforcement by 40% (80% after the reversal) resulted in an increase in over-all accuracy. How is this phenomenon to be explained?
With the correct choice of S2 reinforced only 20% of the time, choice of S2 provides unreliable (ambigu-ous) feedback because the feedback from making a "correct" S2 response is often the same as feedback from making an incorrect S2 response. However, the feedback from making either a correct or incorrect S1 response remains a reliable cue. Thus, it appears that in the proce-dure in which there is 20% reinforcement of correct S2 responses, the unreliability of feedback from the S2 response encourages the pigeons to use the feedback from S1 responses as the primary basis for responding to S2. Because nonreinforcement of the choice of S1 is the only reliable cue to the possibility of reinforcement for the choice of S2, anticipatory errors are eliminated. Furthermore, because, in the absence of anticipatory errors, nonreinforcement of choice of S1 is now the only reliable event, it could serve as a better cue to choose S2. Thus, there is not a significant increase in persever-ate errors, and midsession reversal accuracy actually improves.
It appears that in the case of the standard midses-sion reversal, why the pigeons use the time from the start of the trial to the reversal rather than the feedback from their choices is not because of the absence of reliable cues but presumably because of the symmetry or excess of reliable cues. Pigeons appear to have a bias to attend to cues for reinforcement rather than cues for the absence of reinforcement, and the cues for reinforcement appear to compete with each other. As the pigeon approaches
the midpoint of the session, the current cues may indi-cate that S1 is the correct response; however, anticipa-tion of responding to S2 competes with the correct S1 response. Similarly, after the reversal, memory of the correct S1 response competes with the current feedback from the correct S2 response. Paradoxically, the task is made easier by devaluing the feedback from responding to S2 and encouraging the pigeons to rely primarily on feedback from the incorrect choice of S1.
If this hypothesis is correct, there may be other ways to shift the pigeons' attention from reinforcement asso-ciated with choice of S2 to nonreinforcement assoasso-ciated with choice of S1. For example, the symmetry between choice of S1 and S2 could be altered by making the response requirement to S2 greater (e.g., FR10) than the response requirement to S1 (FR1). Such an experiment is currently in progress.
When animals choose suboptimally, it may tell us something about the processes that underlie the behav-ior. Biologists would say that we have taken behavior that has evolved to have adaptive value for animals in their natural environment and placed it in an unnatu-ral context in which it is no longer adaptive. Their point may be correct, and it encourages us to ask if there is a heuristic that in the natural environment might make this behavior adaptive.
The less is better effect tells us that in choosing between options that are not homogeneous, an organism may use a heuristic that averages the quality of the two options because under certain natural conditions such averaging may be more efficient than trying to quantify food availability. It may be that the quality of fruit on a tree, for example, is easier to estimate than the quan-tity of fruit on a tree, and the averaging heuristic may be used even when the quantities are easy to discriminate, as they should be in the less is better experiments.
help the animal to integrate the two rewards and demon-strate a significant degree of optimal choice.
Explanation of the pigeon's suboptimal choice on the midsession reversal task poses an even more perplex-ing problem. Choice by the pigeon on the typical task provides the pigeon with a great deal of information. Errors let the pigeon know that the reversal either has not yet occurred or has already occurred. Apparently, however, the pigeon has difficulty remembering both what it chose on the preceding trial and the outcome of that trial (Smith et al., 2017). If this is the case, although the time since the start of the session may appear to be a less reliable cue, it may involve less interference than accurate memory of the events on the preceding trial. Using time from the start of the session may turn out to be a heuristic that provides a less ambiguous cue for the pigeon. Paradoxically, greatly reducing the feedback for choice of the stimulus that will provide reinforcement during the last half of the session (S2) encourages the pigeon to better use the feedback from choice of S1, the stimulus that provides reinforcement during the first half of the session. If the pigeon attends to the consequence of choosing S1 and ignores the consequence of choosing S2, it appears to be able to use that information to deter-mine the occurrence of the reversal and to stop using the less efficient timing heuristic.
Although biologists may object to exposing animals to tasks that are not typically encountered in nature, psychologist may use such tasks as diagnostics to explore the tendencies that animals have evolved to deal with the natural world. If environments change slowly enough, the genetic predispositions that appear to be responsi-ble for the kinds of suboptimal choice described in the present review could be selected against and new predis-positions emerge. However, in a rapidly changing envi-ronment, if these animals are to avoid extinction, they should be able to modify those naturally occurring tendencies. That is, flexibility in being able to maximize reinforcement when exposed to artificial laboratory procedures may provide a measure of a species' ability to adapt to the possibility of naturally occurring rapid environmental change.
The common theme that runs through the three exam-ples of suboptimal choice described in the present article is that evolved heuristics that function reasonably well in nature may be less efficient under certain laboratory condi-tions. Is it possible that evolved heuristics can account for other examples of suboptimal choice by animals?
Zentall (2016) identified three examples of subopti-mal or biased choice by anisubopti-mals. The first is sunk cost,
the tendency to continue with a schedule of reinforce-ment in which the animal is already engaged rather than switching to an alternative that would provide reinforce-ment sooner. The bias to continue a task that is already started may be suboptimal under certain laboratory conditions (Macaskill & Hackenberg, 2012; Magal-hães, & White, 2014; Navarro & Fantino, 2005; Pattison et al., 2012), but in nature, switching between tasks may incur added costs including travel time, the possibility that expected resource will no longer be there, and the possibility of predation. Thus, in nature a preference for the relative known over a potentially better but relative unknown would be a useful heuristic.
The second example of suboptimal choice described in the earlier article was referred to as the justification of
effort effect (Clement, Feltus, Kaiser, & Zentall, 2000).
To demonstrate this bias, pigeons are trained to peck a white key, and on some trials, after a single peck, the pigeon can choose between red light and a yellow light, and a peck to red is reinforced. On other trials, 20 pecks are required, and then the pigeon can choose between a green light and a blue light, and a peck to green is reinforced. When pigeons are then given a choice between the two colors that were correct—red and green (with no prior pecking required)—they tend to prefer the green key. Clement et al. attributed this effect to contrast between the state of the pigeon just prior to the appearance of the red and green lights and the conditioned reinforcing value of the correct colored lights. They proposed that there should be greater posi-tive contrast upon the appearance of the green light. The evolved heuristic that could account for this effect may be that if rewards that follow greater effort are given additional value (compared to rewards that follow less effort), it may provide the animals with added incen-tive to continue foraging, which should have additional survival value.
COMPARATIVE COGNITION & BEHAVIOR REVIEWS that the preference for the suboptimal alternative occurs only when reinforcement for choice of that alternative is signaled suggests that it is the value of the signal rather than its probability that determines the preference (20% signaled reinforcement over 50% unsignaled reinforce-ment; Stagner & Zentall, 2010). However, the fact that 50% signaled reinforcement was preferred over 100% reinforcement (Case & Zentall, 2018) suggests that there may also be contrast between the expected value of forcement (50% expected) and the obtained value of rein-forcement (100% obtained) given choice of the subopti-mal alternative, whereas there would be little contrast involving the optimal alternative (100% reinforcement expected and 100% reinforcement obtained). The hypoth-esis that contrast between what is expected and what is signaled to occur is essentially the same as what McDe-vitt et al. (2016) referred to as the "signal for good news" that occurs upon the appearance of the conditioned rein-forcer following choice of the suboptimal alternative.
In all six of the examples of suboptimal or biased choice by pigeons presented in the present article, together with those presented in Zentall (2016), the suboptimal behavior can be explained in terms of evolved heuristics that work reasonably well in nature but sometimes fail under laboratory conditions. The relative stability of suboptimal choice in the case of both the signaled lower probability of reinforcement experi-ments and the midsession reversal experiexperi-ments suggests that it may be very difficult for some animals to over-come those heuristics. Furthermore, it suggests that under certain conditions, some animals may not have the flexibility to easily modify their behavior if sudden changes in their environment require it.
Ainslie, G. W. (1974). Impulse control in pigeons.
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 21, 485–489. doi:10.1901/jeab.1974.21-485
Aronson, E., & Mills, J. (1959). The effect of severity of initiation on liking for a group. Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology, 59, 177–181.
doi:10.1037/h0047195
Becker, G. (1976). The economic approach to human
behavior. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Beran, M. J., Evans, T. A., & Ratliff, C. L. (2009). Perception of food amounts by chimpanzees (Pan
troglodytes): The role of magnitude, contiguity, and
wholeness. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Animal Behavior Processes, 35, 516–524.
doi:10.1037/a0015488
Beran, M. J., Ratliff, C. L., & Evans, T. A. (2009). Natural choice in chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes): Perceptual and temporal effects on selective value. Learning and Motivation, 40, 186–196. doi:10.1016/j.lmot.2008.11.002
Boysen, S. T., Berntson, G. G., Hannan, M. B., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1997). Quantity-based interference and symbolic representation in chimpanzees (Pan-troglodytes). Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 22, 76–86.
doi:10.1037/0097-7403.22.1.76
Bshary, R., & Grutter, A. S. (2002). Experimental evidence that partner choice is a driving force in the payoff distribution among cooperators or mutualists: The cleaner fish case. Ecology Letters, 5, 130–136. doi:10.1046/j.1461-0248.2002.00295.x
Case, J. P., & Zentall, T. R. (2018). Suboptimal choice in pigeons: Does the predictive value of the conditioned reinforcer alone determine choice? Behavioural Processes, 157, 320–326. doi:10.1016/j.beproc.2018.07.018
Clement, T. S., Feltus, J., Kaiser, D. H., & Zentall, T. R. (2000). 'Work ethic' in pigeons: Reward value is directly related to the effort or time required to obtain the reward. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,
7, 100-106. doi:10.3758/BF03210727
Estle, S. J., Green, L., Myerson, J., & Holt, D. D. (2007). Discounting of monetary and directly consumable rewards. Psychological Science, 18, 58-63. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01849.x
Fortes, I., Pinto, C., Machado, A., & Vasconcelos, M. (2018). The paradoxical effect of low reward probabilities in suboptimal choice. Journal of
Grutter, A. S. (2004). Cleaner fish use tactile dancing behavior as a preconflict management strategy. Current Biology, 14, 10180–1083. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2004.05.048
Houston, A. I., McNamara, J. M., & Steer, M. D. (2007). Violations of transitivity under fitness maximization. Biology Letters, 3, 365–367. doi:10.1098/rsbl.2007.0111
Hsee, C. K. (1998). Less is better: When low-value options are valued more highly than high-value options. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 11, 107–121. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-0771(199806) 11:2<107::AID-BDM292>3.0.CO;2-Y
Kacelnik, A. (2006). Meanings of rationality. In S. Hurley & M. Nudds (Eds.),
Rational animals? (pp. 87–106). Oxford,
England: Oxford University Press.
doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198528272.003.0002
Kendall, S. B. (1974). Preference for intermittent reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental
Analysis of Behavior, 21, 463–473.
doi:10.1901/jeab.1974.21-463
Kralik, J. D., Xu, E. R., Knight, E. J., Khan, S. A., & Levine, J. W. (2012). When less is more: Evolutionary origins of the affect heuristic. PLoS
ONE, 7, e46240. doi:10.1371/ journal.pone.0046240
Laibson, D. (1997). Golden eggs and hyperbolic discounting. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112, 443–477. doi:10.1162/003355397555253
Laude, J. R., Stagner, J. P., Rayburn-Reeves, R. M., & Zentall, T. R. (2014). Midsession reversals with pigeons: Visual versus spatial discriminations and the intertrial interval. Learning & Behavior, 42, 40–46. doi:10.3758/s13420-013-0122-x
Macaskill, A., & Hackenberg, T. D. (2012). The sunk cost effect with pigeons: Some determinants of decisions about persistence. Journal of the
Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 97, 85–100.
doi:10.1901/jeab.2012.97-85
Mackintosh, N. J., McGonigle, B., Holgate, V., & Vanderver, V. (1968). Factors underlying improvement in serial reversal learning.
Canadian Journal of Psychology, 22, 85–95.
Magalhães, P., & White, K. G. (2014). The effect of a prior investment on choice: The sunk cost effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Animal Learning and Cognition, 40, 22–37.
doi:10.1037/xan0000007
Mazur, J. E. (1997). Choice, delay, probability, and conditioned reinforcement. Animal Learning &
Behavior, 25, 131–147. doi:10.3758/BF03199051
McDevitt, M. A., Dunn, R. M., Spetch, M. L., & Ludvig, E. A. (2016). When good news leads to bad choices. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of
Behavior, 105, 23–40. doi:10.1002/jeab.192
McDevitt, M. A., Spetch, M. L., & Dunn, R. (1997). Contiguity and conditioned reinforcement in probabilistic choice. Journal of the
Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 6, 317–327.
McMillan, N., & Roberts, W. A. (2012). Pigeons make errors as a result of interval timing in a visual, but not a visual-spatial, midsession reversal task. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Navarro, A. D., & Fantino, E. (2005). The sunk cost effect in pigeons and humans. Journal of the
Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 83, 1–13.
Pattison, K. F., & Zentall, T. R. (2014). Suboptimal choice by dogs: When less is better than
COMPARATIVE COGNITION & BEHAVIOR REVIEWS Pattison, K. F., Zentall, T. R., & Watanabe, S. (2012).
Sunk cost: Pigeons (Columba livia) too show bias to complete a task rather than shift to another.
Journal of Comparative Psychology, 126, 1–9.
Pepperberg, I. M., & Hartsfield, L. A. (2014). Can Grey parrots (Psittacus erithacus) succeed on a "complex" foraging task failed by nonhuman primates (Pan troglodytes, Pongo abelii, Sapajus
apella) but solved by wrasse fish (Labroides dimidiatus)? Journal of Comparative Psychology, 128, 298–306. doi:10.1037/a0036205
Persky, J. (1995). The ethology of homo economicus.
Journal of Economic Perspectives, 9, 221–231.
doi:10.1257/jep.9.2.221
Prétôt, L., Bshary, R., & Brosnan, S. F. (2016a). Comparing species decisions in a dichotomous choice task: Adjusting task parameters improves performance in monkeys. Animal Cognition, 19, 819–834. doi:10.1007/s10071-016-0981-6
Prétôt, L., Bshary, R., & Brosnan, S. F. (2016b). Factors influencing the different performance of fish and primates on a dichotomous choice task. Animal Behaviour, 119, 189–199. doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2016.06.023
Rachlin, H., & Green, L. (1972). Commitment, choice and self-control. Journal of the
Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 17, 15–22.
Rayburn-Reeves, R. M., James, B. J., & Beran, M. J. (2017). Within-session reversal learning in rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta). Animal Cognition, 20, 975–983. doi:10.1007/s10071-017-1117-3
Rayburn-Reeves, R. M., Molet, M., & Zentall, T. R. (2011). Simultaneous discrimination reversal learning in pigeons and humans: Anticipatory and perseverative errors. Learning & Behavior, 39, 125–137. doi:10.3758/s13420-010-0011-5
Rayburn-Reeves, R. M., Stagner, J. P., Kirk, C. R., & Zentall, T. R. (2013). Reversal learning in rats (Rattus norvegicus) and pigeons (Columba livia): Qualitative differences in behavioral flexibility.
Journal of Comparative Psychology, 127, 202–211.
Salwiczek, L. H., Prétôt, L., Demarta, L., Proctor, D., Essler, J., Pinto, A. I., … Bshary, R. (2012). Adult cleaner wrasse outperform capuchin monkeys, chimpanzees, and orangutans in a complex foraging task derived from cleaner-client reef fish cooperation. PLoS One, 7, e49068. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0049068
Sanchez-Amaro, A., Pereto, M., & Call, J. (2016). Differences in between-reinforcer value modulate the selective-value effect in great apes (Pan
troglodytes, P. paniscus, Gorilla gorilla, Pongo abelii). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 130,
1–12. doi:10.1037/com0000014
Santos, C. dos, Soares, C., Vasconcelos, M., & Machado, A. (2017, June). Reinforcement bias
performance in the midsession reversal task. Poster
presented at the meeting of the Society of the Quantitative Analysis of Behavior, Denver, CO.
Simonson, I., & Tversky, A. (1992). Choice in context— tradeoff contrast and extremeness aversion. Journal
of Marketing Research, 29, 281–295.
Skinner, B. F. (1938). The behavior of organisms:
An experimental analysis. New York, NY:
Appleton-Century.
Smith, A. P., Beckmann, J. S., & Zentall, T. R. (2017). Mechanisms of midsession reversal accuracy: memory for preceding events and timing. Journal
of Experimental Psychology: Animal Learning and Cognition, 43, 62–71. doi:10.1037/xan0000124
Smith, A. P., & Zentall, T. R. (2016). Suboptimal choice in pigeons: Choice is primarily based on the value of the conditioned reinforcer rather than overall reinforcement rate. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Animal Learning and Cognition, 42,
Spetch, M., Belke, T., Barnet, R., Dunn, R., & Pierce, W. (1990). Suboptimal choice in a percentage reinforcement procedure: Effects of signal
condition and terminal-link length. Journal of the
Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 53, 219–234.
Stagner, J. P., & Zentall, T. R. (2010). Suboptimal choice behavior by pigeons. Psychonomic Bulletin &
Review, 17, 412–416. doi:10.3758/PBR.17.3.412
Stephens, D. W. (1981). The logic of risk-sensitive foraging preferences. Animal Behaviour, 29, 628–629. doi:10.1016/S0003-3472(81)80128-5
Stephens, D. W., & Krebs, J. R. (1986). Foraging theory. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Stubbs, D. A. (1976). Response bias and the
discrimination of stimulus duration. Journal of the
Thorndike, E. L. (1911). Animal intelligence:
Experimental studies. New York, NY: Macmillan.
doi:10.5962/bhl.title.55072
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124–1131. doi:10.1126/science.185.4157.1124
Vasconcelos, M., Machado, A., & Pandeirada, J. N. S. (2018). Ultimate explanations and suboptimal choice. Behavioural Processes, 152, 63–72. doi:10.1016/j.beproc.2018.03.023
Zentall, T. R. (2016). When humans and other animals behave irrationally. Comparative
Cognition & Behavior Reviews, 11, 25–48.
doi:10.3819/ccbr.2016.110002
Zentall, T. R., Andrews, D. M., & Case, J. P. (2017). Prior commitment: Its effect on suboptimal choice in a gambling-like task. Behavioural Processes, 145, 1–9. doi:10.1016/j.beproc.2017.09.008
Zentall, T. R., Andrews, D. M., Case, J. P., & Peng, D. N. (2019). Less information results in better midsession reversal accuracy by pigeons. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Zentall, T. R., Case, J. P., & Berry, J. R. (2017a). Early commitment facilitates optimal choice by pigeons.
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 24, 957–963.
Zentall, T. R., Case, J. P., & Berry, J. R. (2017b). Rats' acquisition of the ephemeral reward task. Animal Cognition, 20, 419–425. doi:10.1007/s10071-016-1065-3
Zentall, T. R., Case, J. P., & Luong, J. (2016). Pigeon's paradoxical preference for the suboptimal
alternative in a complex foraging task. Journal
of Comparative Psychology, 130, 138–144.
doi:10.1037/com0000026
Zentall, T. R., Laude, J. R., Case, J. P., & Daniels, C. W. (2014). Less means more for pigeons but not always.
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21, 1623–1628.
Percentage preference for the optimal alternative (a piece of cheese plus a piece of carrot) over the suboptimal alternative (a piece of cheese alone) for each dog in the study (Pattison & Zentall, 2014). p.4
Proportion of optimal choice plotted for the high food restricted (High) and low food restricted (Low) groups p.5
Design of Zentall et al. (2016, Experiment 3). When pigeons chose yellow, reinforcement (Rf) was provided and the trial was over p.6
Commitment procedure used by Rachlin and Green (1972). Pigeons could choose between a later choice between smaller-sooner (2-s immediate reinforcement [Rf]) and larger-later (4-s delayed Rf) or only larger later (4-s delayed Rf). p.7
Percentage optimal choice for pigeons that had to complete a fixed-interval 20-s schedule (FI20s Choice) to obtain initial reinforcement (green) and pigeons that had to make a single peck to obtain initial reinforcement (red; error bars = ±1 SEM p.8
Mean percentage choice of the first correct stimulus (S1) as a function of trial number for Sessions 31 to 50 (the last 20 sessions of training) p.10
Mean percentage choice of the first correct stimulus (S1) as a function of trial number for Sessions 41 to 50 p.11
Download (N/A - 17 Page - 1.08MB)
Related subjects : choice task and Behavior H/sub 2/ suboptimal control Situated cognition and the function of behavior
What is the Real Name of the Messiah
"The only Savior in the Scripture is Jahshuwah, (or Jehoshua) - the Son of Jahwah (Jehovah). He came in His Father's Name and by that
What Is The Purpose of the Firm?
The fi rst, shareholder theory, emanates from an economic perspective, focusing on the fi rm's purpose of creating wealth for its owners while minimizing both the importance of the fi
Prosperity - The Choice is Yours
Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is everyone that hangeth on a tree: That the blessing of Abraham
what is the cause of thunder
the perfect place for me to go! OPHELIA. Of course not me. I've never been to Venezuela but we should really take a vacation. It is quite difficult to play an evil
The Choice of the Propeller
T h e frequencies of the periodic force fluctuations due to the propeller running in the flow field behind the ship, will be equal to the number of revolutions of
The Purpose Of The Sales Invoice Is To
Modules across their own purpose sales is to make educated forecasts and utility of sale of an invoice number that in sale of payment for leaving the template?. Little reason to the
The Church Is Often Referred To As Our
County community worshiping our church often referred to as trinitarian theology degree from a social teaching.. Buildings dedicated to god is often referred our site design your stats
Cidr Is Also Referred To As Which
All their customers numbered in the scaling of class c subnet address tells how is cidr also to as which hosts need this range of?. Kiselev VY, Kirschner K, Schaub MT, Andrews T, Yiu A,
Instant Messaging Is Commonly Referred To As
Communication through various text-based chat application commonly referred to making instant messaging applications Comment A comment is prompt response that clergy often.. Google is
What is the referendum about?
If you are registered to vote in England, Scotland or Wales as an overseas voter, you need to send the form to the electoral registration office where you are registered to vote to
What Is The Age Of Consent In Us
Prefectures have different, is consent in us has fifteen may allow teens between married to the legal age of consent or from one state that sexual encounter.. Statute that is the in us
Candidiasis Is More Commonly Referred To As
Courses and is commonly referred to prevent this causes candida species and throat candidiasis and symptoms of oral or antibiotics.. Nursing babies and candidiasis referred to confirm
Is the US too big to fail?
The goal of the present article is to
Climate change is expected to alter the
WHICH ONE IS THE ALCOHOLIC?
THE GAME IS ABOUT TO CHANGE
THE ADVENTURE OF A LIFETIME IS ABOUT TO BEGIN.
Charles D. Hayes - Self University - The Price of Tuition is the Desire to Learn...
The Cure is in the Cupboard: How to Use Oregano for Better Health
Which of the Following Complications is Thought to Be the Most Common Cause of A...
How To Know What The Eurozone Is About
The purpose of the Board's meeting is to:


It's been 3 months after my ReLEx® SMILE® surgery. When I get up I have 100% vision in both eyes, but after about 5 - 30 minutes the vision in my right eye starts decreasing to about 75 - 80%.
Streching my eyelid skin seems to help recover some vision. Could this problem be due to overcorrection or ciliary muscle function? I have an appointment next week, and it would be great if I could ask my surgeon the right questions.
When you see your doctor next week, ask him/her exactly what you have asked over here. You already have the right questions to ask:).
But if we talk in general terms, yes, it is possible to have overcorrections after SMILE, just as it is possible to have overcorrections or undercorrections after LASIK/PRK/ICL surgery. Usually these over/undercorrections (if any) are small, and patients still have good vision without glasses. The percentage of patients who have enough over/undercorrection to need an enhancement/adjustment is usually 1% or less. Whether this is causing your symptom or not is difficult to say here.
The only way to tell what is causing your symptom is to do a full examination, including refraction (spectacle power check), slit lamp examination, corneal topography, and so on.
Hopefully your eye problems will be successfully addressed after you see your doctor next week.
I quite agree with Dr Por. You should have a proper eye check first, including a refraction test to check your eye power to see if indeed it is overcorrection, or even undercorrection. Hopefully it is not significant under- or over-correction, as enhancement is a bit trickier following SMILE and you may have to consider either LASIK or surface ablation as enhancement options if really necessary.
In my experience as a SMILE surgeon, in general it is more likely to be under than over corrected.
However, the fact that you sight is fluctuating makes me wonder if you are in fact experiencing some post-SMILE dry eyes. Even though SMILE induces less dry eyes after surgery than LASIK, usually patients will still need some dry eye treatment following surgery. Do rest your eyes more and continue with your lubricating drops.
Hope it turns out alright! Cheerio!
Post-SMILE vision fluctuation as you described could be due to several reasons which you should consider. As you correctly mentioned, it is certainly possible that you were left with residual hyperopia during the initial procedure, and after prolonged accommodation to see clearly, accommodation fatigue may have set in and hence vision becomes slightly degraded.
The second reason to consider is that of droopy eyelids. You mentioned that when you stretch your eyelids (did you mean to elevate the eyelids in an upward position?) then the vision is fully restored? If so, then ptosis, or droopy eyelids as a result of previous contact lens use, or frequent eye rubbing, or simply an ageing change is a common reason for such symptoms. I usually inform my patients of this finding at the initial consultation, and advise that after the initial surgery, they would benefit from a short procedure to elevate the eyelids in order to refresh the appearance, and make vision more comfortable in the long run.
Of course, the last and very common cause of fluctuating vision is that of dry eyes.
Do consider these suggestions, and hopefully you will be able to come to an accurate diagnosis and solution quickly!


text:
Culture, Society & Politics
Diaspora and Migration
Science Studies
North, Central & West Asia
Inner and Central Asian Studies
Iran and Persian Studies
Ottoman and Turkish Studies
Russian and Soviet Studies
Tibetan and Himalayan Studies
East, South & Southeast Asia
Asian Archaeology
Asian Art History
Japan Studies
Korean Studies
Eastern and Central Europe
Latin American and Caribbean Studies
U.S. History & American Studies
Fresh from the Archives
Applicants Forum
Editors Forum
Seeking Editors
Review & Be Reviewed
Astronomical Knowledge in Early Modern India
Science StudiesSouth Asia September 25, 2012 - 2 comments
A review of The Spatialization of Knowledge and Power at the Observatories of Sawai Jai Singh II c. 1721-43 CE, by Susan N. Johnson-Roehr.
Susan Johnson-Roehr analyzes the production of astronomical knowledge at a quintet of observatories under the patronage of Sawai Jai Singh (1721-1743 CE) during the eighteenth century. She examines the conventional archives on the astronomical knowledge to criticize the persistence of colonial biases embedded in the historical narratives. These biases include timelessness and morbidity of Indian sciences that continue to dominate the production of scholarly works. This analysis asserts how the observatories were active participants of change, development, and destruction since their foundation. Johnson-Roehr's most significant contribution is the focus on the ancillary components of astronomical knowledge: planning, labor, language, and use of raw materials that transformed the landscape in pre-colonial India.
Chapter 1 reveals a vibrant story of scientific experimentation as well as adaptation in the cultural landscape where Sawai Jai Singh envisioned these monuments to operate. The observatories were not built just to reproduce data borrowed from Central Asia but to compile detailed astronomical data made in India (p.15). However, Sawai Jai Singh's contribution has been ignored and denied a place in history, while the instruments designed by him have been seen as unsophisticated oddities of medievalism (p. 16). The most influential histories of the observatories are produced by colonial institutions on the basis of three seminal articles by Robert Barker, John Williams, and William Hunter. These authors have relegated Sawai Jai Singh's observatories as Hindu in origin, ancient in age, purposeless relics (p. 22). This work broadens the area of research on postcolonial criticism of designed environment. Johnson-Roehr asserts that Sawai Jai Singh envisioned a cross-cultural and multilingual discussion on implementation of an astronomy program. The ruler tried to diversify his scientific worldview by adding European astronomers (p. 35). Johnson-Roehr's analysis places Sawai Jai Singh's contributions to scientific knowledge in Indian history beyond the strict constructs of orientalist discourse. At the same time, the author disentangles him from the nationalist/communal projections of an ideal "Hindu" king (p. 42).
Chapter 2, entitled "Spatialization of Knowledge," puts Sawai Jai Singh at the center of scientific inquiry in Indian history. By repositioning the observatories of Jaipur and Shahjahanabad (Delhi) as the foci, she successfully demonstrates how they functioned as prototypes for instrumentation and experimentation at Mathura, Ujjain, and Varanasi. British colonial historiography has erased Sawai Jai Singh's contribution as a patron and his observatories as active centers of creativity and productivity in the eighteenth century. The interconnectivity of five observatories is examined to explicate the deployment of systems of knowledge at various sites. Historians working on the successor states of the eighteenth century would appreciate this chapter's major argument about symbolic uses of architecture for the legitimization of rule (p .118).
Chapter 3, "Institutions in the Intramural Landscape," introduces the historiography on Sawai Jai Singh's quintet of observatories. Johnson-Roehr opts for an intramural analytic to draw attention to actual boundaries raised by architecture and landscape in the city of Jaipur. According to her, multifarious networks intersect to produce, create, transcribe, and accumulate astronomical knowledge in India at one place (p. 170). The section on the building of the Jaipur observatory is based on archival records and highlights the bureaucratic intricacies, financial entitlements, and procurement of raw materials, as well as the presence of physical labor (p. 207). These details reinforce Johnson-Roehr's argument regarding how Sawai Jai Singh successfully sustain the production of astronomical knowledge at various locations.
In Chapter 4, the author evaluates Sawai Jai Singh's efforts to participate in the extramural space of scientific inquiry. First, he initiated contacts to gain access to the astronomical works and developments in Europe through the Society of Jesus (Jesuits). Second, he tried to relocate experts permanently to his capital city of Jaipur to consolidate European resources. He made efforts to join in global discussions of the science of astronomy. Contrary to European perceptions, the author asserts that Sawai Jai Singh wanted a second viewpoint on his own expertise (p. 228), wanting to expand his already diverse conglomerate of astronomers by adding European representatives. However, Sawai Jai Singh's experienced limited success in drawing the extramural inward, that is, in acclimatizing European experts to the demands of his intellectual community. Also, the eighteenth-century political unrest, natural phenomena, and designed landscape of northern India were primary deterrents to his plans. Johnson-Roehr cogently concludes that the observatories functioned as vibrant research centers with expertise brought from different locations, countries, and languages to the sites, and they should not be understood as extant specimens of ancient science (p.274).
Chapter 5 traces the history of the five observatories after the death of Sawai Jai Singh. Section one discusses why scholars working on the history of observatories rely on the British official records, and ignore other Europeans accounts. Section two discusses how these sites have maintained a meaningful presence in their local environments. Jaipur observatory became embedded as exemplars of religious devotion both as a local tourist attraction and for a global audience (p.306). In contrast, Shahjahanabad observatory has assumed a Mughal heritage from the nineteenth century onwards. Finally, the instruments were painted "imperial red color" to resemble other Mughal monuments like Humanyun's tomb (p. 307). Ujjain observatory struggles with an identity crisis while its present management (the state government of Madhya Pradesh) tries to depict it "as a real observatory". The Varanasi observatory is almost obscured in the midst of religious devotees on the bank of river Ganges (p. 307). The last section describes the multiple identities of the observatories and its instruments. Observatories maintained a continuous presence through visual depictions in Europe since the last decades of the nineteenth century. In post-colonial India, the observatories have been subsumed under a discourse of national identity. Sawai Jai Singh's instruments are represented as Indian scientific achievements on posters, stamps or reproduced as replicas of "Vedic science" (p. 315).
Chapter 6 synthesizes the major arguments put forward in the dissertation about the interconnectivity of the production of scientific knowledge by Sawai Jai Singh (p. 346). After the death of Sawai Jai Singh, the observatories continue to play contradictory roles in various interpretations of regional and nationalist histories. Along with their instruments, they are represented around the world as quintessential examples of Indian antiquity (p. 349). Johnson-Roehr asserts that the "observatories were not designed to operate as solitary institutions but rather as components of a dynamic network of information production and exchange" (p. 350).
This analysis will be welcomed by the historians working on pre-colonial political structures, strategies of legitimization, and post-colonial nationalism as well as its critics.
Fatima Ahmad Imam
Assistant Professor of History
Lake Forest College
imam@lakeforest.edu
Rajasthan State Archives, Bikaner, India: Athsathi Imarati Sawai Jaipur, Dastur Kaumwar, Jama Karch Imarati Sawai Jaipur, Pothikhana, and Tozi Syaha Imarati Sawai Jaipur
Asia, Pacific and Africa Collections, British Library, London, UK
Science and Society Picture Library, London, UK
Tod Manuscripts: Royal Asiatic Society, London, UK
Fonds Brotier, Les Archives des Jesuites de Paris, Vanves, France
Dissertation Information
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. 2011. 387 pp. Primary Advisor: Panayiota Pyla.
Image: Photograph by Susan Johnson-Roehr.
Tags:2011 Dissertation, Panayiota Pyla, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Chinese Medicine in 20th c. France & Italy
Chinese Muslim Identities in Northern Thailand
Pingback: September 2012 Posts | Dissertation Reviews
Pingback: Dissertation Reviews of special interest to the FHSAsia | Forum for the History of Science in Asia
Email Notifications by Series
Your Series of Choice (select as many as you like) Fresh from the Archives (all series) Talking Shop (all series) Anthropology Asian Archaeology Asian Art History Chinese Studies Chinese Literature Critical Human Rights Diaspora and Migration Studies Eastern and Central European Studies Economic History Gender and Sexuality Studies Inner and Central Asian Studies Iran and Persian Studies Islamic Studies Japan Studies Korean Studies Latin American and Caribbean Studies Media Studies Medieval Studies Museum Studies Ottoman and Turkish Studies Performance Studies Religious Studies Russian Studies Science Studies Southeast Asian Studies South Asian Studies Tibetan and Himalayan Studies U.S. History/American Studies
Get Involved at DR
To contribute a review of your own, to have your dissertation reviewed, or to contribute a Talking Shop or Fresh from the Archives piece, all you need to do is get in touch.
Recently on DR
The National Library of China Ancient Books Section
A review of the National Library of China Ancient Books Section (中國國家圖書館古籍館) In China, the majority of central government archives of the Qing dynasty (1644-1911) are…
The China Film Archive 中国电影资料馆
The Oriental Collection at Peshawar University
The Dr. Iqbal Mujaddidi Collection at Punjab University
The Politics of Russian Archaeology in Ottoman Lands
Modernity and Modernization in Turkey
Women's Migration and Home in Chinese and Sinophone Culture
Gender and Restaurant Work in Shanghai
Colombian Youth and Educational Bureaucracies in Ecuador
Public Health and Citizenship in Colombia, 1930-1940
DR by Series
Monthly Archives Select Month January 2019 (2) January 2017 (3) October 2016 (3) June 2016 (2) May 2016 (31) April 2016 (31) March 2016 (27) February 2016 (25) January 2016 (26) December 2015 (13) November 2015 (23) October 2015 (20) September 2015 (21) June 2015 (2) May 2015 (48) April 2015 (42) March 2015 (33) February 2015 (46) January 2015 (52) December 2014 (17) November 2014 (37) October 2014 (32) September 2014 (12) August 2014 (16) June 2014 (1) May 2014 (63) April 2014 (51) March 2014 (57) February 2014 (57) January 2014 (56) December 2013 (13) November 2013 (35) October 2013 (40) September 2013 (27) August 2013 (4) July 2013 (2) June 2013 (2) May 2013 (68) April 2013 (50) March 2013 (48) February 2013 (44) January 2013 (45) December 2012 (2) November 2012 (31) October 2012 (40) September 2012 (23) August 2012 (10) July 2012 (3) June 2012 (1) May 2012 (7) April 2012 (17) March 2012 (7) February 2012 (9) January 2012 (14) December 2011 (3) November 2011 (12) October 2011 (14) July 2011 (1) May 2011 (3) March 2011 (1) February 2011 (3) January 2011 (5) December 2010 (4) November 2010 (5) October 2010 (2)
When Art Meets Scholarship in the Age of Digital Production on Art Meets Scholarship: Q&A with Tong Lam
Compradors in British Hong Kong | Writings help on Compradors in British Hong Kong
Dissertation Reviews Season 6 Starts Monday | Writings help on Dissertation Reviews Season 6 Starts Monday
The Meru Cosmos in Buddhist Art and Culture | Writings help on The Meru Cosmos in Buddhist Art and Culture
Redefining Public Space in Hanoi | Writings help on Redefining Public Space in Hanoi
©2014 Dissertation Reviews

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
greencoffeeplus » Hip hop » Force MD's - Special Edition With Sid McCoy
Force MD's - Special Edition With Sid McCoy album
Force MD's Contemporary RandB Public Broadcast 1987
Interview and music with Earl Klugh. There are no track titles or lengths listed on sleeve or label.
Backstage with the legendary Force MD's! Live at Corona Ranch in Laveen, Arizona, December 11th, 2015. Special shout outs to Larry Davis of MG Entertainment & my brother Brion McCoy for Vizionz Multimedia. Автовоспроизведение Если функция включена, то следующий ролик начнет воспроизводиться автоматически.
The Real McCoy is the seventh album by jazz pianist McCoy Tyner and his first released on the Blue Note label. It was recorded on April 21, 1967 following Tyner's departure from the John Coltrane Quartet and features performances by Tyner with Joe Henderson, Ron Carter and Elvin Jones. Producer Alfred Lion recalls the recording session as a "pure jazz session. There is absolutely no concession to commercialism, and there's a deep, passionate love for the music embedded in each of the selections".
Songfacts Newsletter. A monthly update on our latest interviews, stories and added songs.
From the Album Touch And Go (1987). com) Love Is A House Couldn't Care Less. From the Album Chillin' (1985). com) Here I Go Again Tender Love. Other Songs: Heart Of Gold. Currently Trending Lyrics.
The Force MD's hailed from the Mariners Harbor projects on Staten Island. They honed their skills in the corners of Times Square, where they developed their signature sound, which successfully mashed up Doo-Wop, R&B and Hip-Hop, with unprecedented success. The Force MD's sold millions of records thanks to a legendary run of hits that included classics like Itchin For a Scratch, Tears, Tender Love, Here I Go Again, Love Is A House and others.
The Force MDs originally called itself the . s, then the Force MCs, but ultimately preferred MD, which is short for musical diversity. Though the group wasn't quite always as recognizable as other New York R&B acts when it first started, the Force MDs were among the first R&B vocal groups to intermix doo-wop-affected consonances with hip-hop beats. When the group began performing as the . s on Greenwich Village street corners and the Staten Island ferry, the group was comprised of brothers Stevie D.
A Special Edition With Sid McCoy (Side One)
B Special Edition With Sid McCoy (Side Two)
C Special Edition With Sid McCoy (Side Three)
D Special Edition With Sid McCoy (Side Four)
Marketed By – Michelob Beer
Pressed By – KM Records Inc.
Hosted By – Sid McCoy
Matrix / Runout (A-Side Runout Etching): SE 87-43-1 > KM
Matrix / Runout (B-Side Runout Etching): SE-87-43-2 > KM
Matrix / Runout (C-Side Runout Etching): SE-87-43-3 > KM
Matrix / Runout (D-Side Runout Etching): SE-87-43-4 > KM
Contemporary R&B, Public Broadcast
Performer: Force MD's
Title: Special Edition With Sid McCoy
Category: Hip hop / Soul & Funk / Not music
Other Formats: VOC AHX AA AIFF ADX DXD XM
Related music albums at Force MD's - Special Edition With Sid McCoy:
Rev. C.L. Franklin - Why Have The Mighty Fallen? download mp3
Van McCoy / Luciano Rossi - Change With The Times / Senza Parole download mp3
Clyde McCoy And His Orchestra - Sugar Blues Boogie / Hell's Bells download mp3
Barnet Preacher Henry - Rattlesnake / Jump Up And Wave (Special T&T Carnival Edition) download mp3
McCoy Tyner - Rotunda download mp3
Dan Fogelberg - Off The Record Special download mp3
Neal McCoy - At This Moment download mp3
Van McCoy - It Ain't No Big Thing / Love Can Mess Up Your Mind download mp3
Kevin Lassiter - It's My Love download mp3
Real McCoy - Best Of Real McCoy - Another Night download mp3


text:
Dutch minister fired over coronavirus passport criticism
Mona Keijzer dismissed after giving newspaper interview.
Former Dutch State Secretary of Economic Affairs Mona Keijzer | Bart Maat/EPA-EFE
By Lukas Kotkamp
September 25, 2021 4:59 pm CET
Mona Keijzer was sacked as state secretary of economic affairs in the Dutch government on Saturday after criticizing the corona admissions pass, which came into effect earlier that day.
In an interview with the Dutch newspaper De Telegraaf printed Saturday morning, Keijzer expressed her dissatisfaction with the pass. She said it was "clear to me that it becomes increasingly difficult to explain why you have to show a proof of vaccination in one place, but not the other," adding: "Which makes me think: are we just going to stick to this course, or are we going to organize ourselves properly?"
From Saturday, proof of vaccination or a negative test are mandatory when entering public venues in the Netherlands as most social-distancing measures have been lifted. The policy passed by a narrow margin in parliament, but clearly the government itself wasn't in complete accord.
In a statement, Prime Minister Mark Rutte said he, with the agreement of senior members of his team, decided that Keijzer should be dismissed "with immediate effect."
Dutch cabinet members are constitutionally bound to speak with one voice and to express their concerns only within the ministerial council. According to the Rutte statement, Keijzer's comments were in "direct conflict with decisions made only recently in the council."
Her dismissal comes just after the resignation of two other members of the cabinet, as Foreign Minister Sigrid Kaag and Defense Minister Ank Bijleveldt resigned last week over the handling of the evacuation of the Dutch embassy in Kabul.
More from ... Lukas Kotkamp
Coronavirus Dutch politics Vaccination Campaign
cartoon carousel World's cartoonists on this week's events
Poland clears first hurdle to get EU cash
MEPs want to grill von der Leyen over Pfizer vaccine contract
On a knife-edge: Brussels restaurants fight for survival — again
cartoon carousel 2022: The year in cartoons


I hate to say it, but fashion week ended recently. February 13th was the last day that designers showed their creations to the public. Once fashion week has ended we all know that magazines are going to be all over the news and trends. I decided to create this Vogue outfit because it's one of the top fashion magazines out there, and because I love the content that they publish in their magazines. I decided to include a lot of colors in this outfit because Vogue is known for the quirky high fashion looks that they always bring to the table. Also the pictures used in the dress are very chic and stylish just like a photograph you might find on the polished pages of a Vogue magazine. I made sure to keep the rest of the accessories very simple because the dress is already loud and simple accessories will keep the outfit classy and chic.


Attention MONTAGE Owners: If you purchased a new Mac or upgraded your existing Apple computer to MacOS Mojave you will want to update MONTAGE Connect to version 1.0.5. This version is fully compatitible with Mojave and is available as a free download for all MONTAGE users. Get it HERE!
About MONTAGE Connect: MONTAGE Connect is a convenient tool which lets you transfer data between your computer and the MONTAGE. Song data created on the MONTAGE can be transferred to your computer and the Performance data edited on the MONTAGE can be saved as a file (.X7B) on the computer.
MONTAGE Connect, based on Steinberg's VST3 technology, works as a VST3 plug-in with the Cubase series. The MONTAGE Connect also works as the same way as other VST instrument software, allowing you to save the edited settings of the MONTAGE, or use them for another project.
For users of AU (Audio Unit) compatible DAWs like Apple Logic, MONTAGE Connect includes an AU Component too.


text:
The human cost of modern working practices needs a local response, not just a national one
New research by The Renewal Trust and Nottingham Trent University has helped to reveal the human cost of modern working practices like zero hours contracts, with the poorest communities often bearing the brunt of the impact. Now, the Renewal Trust is calling for an urgent local response to the issue, as CEO Cherry Underwood explains: […]
New research by The Renewal Trust and Nottingham Trent University has helped to reveal the human cost of modern working practices like zero hours contracts, with the poorest communities often bearing the brunt of the impact. Now, the Renewal Trust is calling for an urgent local response to the issue, as CEO Cherry Underwood explains:
"There's been a lot of talk in the media about modern working practices, following the publication of the Taylor Report. Nationally, the falling levels of unemployment suggest a positive picture, but it's becoming increasingly clear that many of these jobs are insecure, low-paid, temporary jobs, including zero hours contracts. Broadly speaking, the Taylor Report recognised this and made some recommendations for improving things, but many felt it didn't go far enough.
"We set out to research how we could support over 29's in Nottingham with employment, including the barriers they face when looking for work, concentrating on the areas of the city we work in – St Ann's, Sneinton and Mapperley. We chose to focus on supporting people aged over 29 because Nottingham guarantees its 18-25 year olds a job, training or further education, so we wanted to find out what life was like for older people, who aren't eligible for these kind of support schemes.
"What we found is that many people are being forced to survive on low-paid, temporary jobs, including zero hours contracts, and that comes at a huge human cost, especially for those with little or no choice about whether or not to accept these kinds of jobs. So, it quickly became clear that the focus of our research needed to change, to turn the spotlight on the human cost of modern working practices, by asking those affected to share their stories.
"Beyond that, we wanted to see how employment support can be improved at a local level, especially given the grim picture at a national level, including punitive benefit sanctions and the 'any job will do' directive given to job centres. This kind of generic 'support' is at the expense of meaningful, personalised support, based on an individual's needs, skills, experience and qualifications. Nationally, the UK doesn't have a person or even business centred approach to employment support, it's merely about counting the numbers.
desktop architecture and mechanical design concept, a tape measure, computer keyboard and wrench
"By far, people's negative work experiences focus on temporary agency work and zero hours contracts, and they feel being forced to take these kinds of jobs prevent them from finding more secure employment. People are concerned they can't plan ahead financially and don't have as many employment rights and opportunities, creating a real sense of insecurity. The unpredictable nature of temporary work also has huge implications when it comes to managing everyday life, especially for parents, carers and those with additional responsibilities.
"Unsurprisingly, all these factors are having a big impact on mental health, with research by the mental health charity Mind showing that 'inappropriate or poor quality work can have as negative an effect on people's mental health as not being in work' (Mind, 2014.)
"What's really important to understand is that low-paid workers are bearing the brunt of the trend towards temporary work, with 'low-skilled workers in low paid jobs the most likely to be offered zero hours contracts' (Finn, 2016.) It's very clear we're not 'all in it together', underlining the urgent need for creative local responses designed hand-in-hand with communities.
"Along with Nottingham Trent University, we're planning to use the research to inform discussions with employers and policymakers, in Nottingham and further afield. Collectively, we need to design services that really work and help break the vicious cycle of people being forced into situations that affect their physical or mental health and lead to them becoming unemployed again, or having to use foodbanks, because their zero hours contract hasn't given them enough to live on.
"We're also in the process of redesigning our own support services for jobseekers, in consultation with local communities and organisations. We're planning to move from a 'one size fits all' group-based approach, to more tailored, one-to-one support.
"There's no reason why local employment services can't, at least in part, fill the gap left by national services that aren't delivering what people really need – a holistic approach to employment that supports people as individuals."
For more information on The Renewal Trust: www.renewaltrust.co.uk
Four stats that rubbish May's record unemployment rate
Nottingham launches new programme to shake up leadership
Chief constable calls for Priti Patel to 'stand back' from policing
TLE Meets…Lucie Pohl
British fishers warn of "fatal blow" as EU bans shellfish indefinitely
Restaurant Review – Petit Pois Bistro
Homemade Beer Bread
Sony's Hacking Nightmare (Continued)
Gareth Southgate letter reminds us of 'what it means to be a progressive patriot' – Bragg
Most burnt reactions as Gwyneth Paltrow admits to eating bread in lockdown
'Unknown number killed' in blast outside Kabul airport amid evacuation effort
Westminster's voting system is bankrupt. Why it's time for proportional representation


When you work in digital marketing and advertising, there are so many terms thrown around that it can be hard to keep up. Attend a conference and even the most experienced marketer can find themselves floundering at times because someone has come up with a new term to explain something that was perfectly simple before. Keeping on top of the buzzwords and definitions is essential though, so we're here to cover programmatic advertising for those of you who have maybe heard of it but have no idea what it actually is.
So what is it? Well, it's been called "the beginning of the end for all manual processes in digital advertising", which isn't exactly a catchy name, and probably isn't even accurate. So we'll start at the start. Traditionally, adverts have been bought and sold manually by ad buyers and salespeople, which isn't a perfect system and seems out-dated when it comes to the modern world of digital advertising, so that is why programmatic media buying exists.
The significance of this is that it both speeds the process up by removing the human element from the more menial parts and also cuts down costs for the same reason. This allows more time and money to be spent on actually planning and implementing the ad campaigns, and the rise of programmatic advertising has led to a change in the way both agencies and in-house marketers are working, which only seems set to continue.
If you've used Google AdWords, you'll have a good idea of how this works, the difference is that AdWords is based around search ads and this is for display ads that appear on websites, etc. It allows you to target and segment your advertising by various demographics and geographic factors as well as deciding where and when the ads appear, all aspects that you would normally need to negotiate when buying the ads, which in theory gives you a lot more hands-on control.
The information you provide about who you are targeting is then used to determine which websites your ads will appear on and the process of matching them up and assigning the space to the highest bidder is all done automatically. This can be through Real Time Bidding or also the more direct approach where an advertiser buys a set number of impressions.
It may have started out in digital advertising, but programmatic advertising is rapidly moving into other forms of media too – like TV, radio and out of home advertising – unsurprisingly when there are so many benefits. It's on the up and up at the moment as more agencies switch to it as their main tool for ad buying. According to the IAB, programmatic ads now represent about 60% of all digital spend in the UK, with 93% of agencies and 87% of advertisers using it. LinkedIn announced last week that it is introducing programmatic buying for display ads on its desktop site, through either open auctions or Private Auctions.
Its head of products Russell Glass said: "We don't want to reinvent the wheel. We want to build table stakes capabilities into our platform in a way that highlights our differences, but is kind of what marketers have come to expect." LinkedIn has trialled this option over the last few months in some sectors and had already offered programmatic advertising for sponsored content, which has grown by 80% in the first quarter.
Continued developments like this demonstrate that programmatic ads are not only here to stay but are going to be a part of the way all display ads are bought in the future.
Do you already use programmatic advertising or are you planning to in the future? Do you think it's the future of display advertising? Let us know in the comments section or via social media, and don't forget to subscribe to the blog to receive more articles straight to your inbox.


Hi folks, Happy Halloween! I hope everyone's safe and sound from Hurricane Sandy. We're getting some wind and rain but nothing major. What's Sandy doing in your neighbourhood?
While trying to come up with some creative for a Halloween mani, I came across these little gems.
What's That You Say? I Have a Herring Problem!
The Holland Collection includes : A Roll in the Hague, Red Lights Ahead...Where?, Kiss Me on My Tulips, Pedal Faster Suzi!, Dutch 'Ya Just Love OPI?, Vampsterdam, Did You 'ear About Van Gogh?, Thanks a WindMillion, Wooden Shoe Like to Know?, I Have a Herring Problem, I Don't Give a Rotterdam!, Gouda Gouda Two Shoes.