These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.
127 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 18318422)
21. Does a negative discriminative stimulus function as a punishing consequence? Bland VJ; Cowie S; Elliffe D; Podlesnik CA J Exp Anal Behav; 2018 Jul; 110(1):87-104. PubMed ID: 29926923 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. The essential value of the alternatives of the suboptimal choice procedure is different for pigeons and rats. López-Tolsa GE; Niño JM; Orduña V Behav Processes; 2020 Dec; 181():104245. PubMed ID: 32991942 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Response rate is not an effective mediator of learned stimulus equivalence in pigeons. Frank AJ; Wasserman EA Learn Behav; 2005 Aug; 33(3):287-95. PubMed ID: 16396076 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. [Relative quantitative estimations in pigeons and crows: the spontaneous choice of a greater set of food items]. Zorina ZA; Smirnova AA Zh Vyssh Nerv Deiat Im I P Pavlova; 1994; 44(3):618-21. PubMed ID: 7941728 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
26. Pigeons shift their preference toward locations of food that take more effort to obtain. Friedrich AM; Zentall TR Behav Processes; 2004 Nov; 67(3):405-15. PubMed ID: 15518990 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. The influence of outcome delay on suboptimal choice. McDevitt MA; Pisklak JM; Spetch M; Dunn R Behav Processes; 2018 Dec; 157():279-285. PubMed ID: 30394293 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. When is a choice not a choice? Pigeons fail to inhibit incorrect responses on a go/no-go midsession reversal task. McMillan N; Sturdy CB; Spetch ML J Exp Psychol Anim Learn Cogn; 2015 Jul; 41(3):255-65. PubMed ID: 25915749 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Lesions in the basal ganglion and hippocampus on performance in a Wisconsin Card Sorting Test-like task in pigeons. Watanabe S Physiol Behav; 2005 Jun; 85(3):324-32. PubMed ID: 15936047 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Rats are optimal in a choice task in which pigeons are not. Trujano RE; Orduña V Behav Processes; 2015 Oct; 119():22-7. PubMed ID: 26200394 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Cognitive precedence for local information in hierarchical stimulus processing by pigeons. Cavoto KK; Cook RG J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process; 2001 Jan; 27(1):3-16. PubMed ID: 11199512 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Pigeons prefer to invest early for future reinforcers. Cowie S; Davison M J Exp Anal Behav; 2021 May; 115(3):650-666. PubMed ID: 33945152 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Cocaine's effects on food-reinforced pecking in pigeons depend on food-deprivation level. Schaal DW; Miller MA; Odum AL J Exp Anal Behav; 1995 Jul; 64(1):61-73. PubMed ID: 7622982 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Animal procrastination: Pigeons choose to defer experiencing an aversive gap or a peck requirement. Zentall TR; Peng D; House D; Halloran M Learn Behav; 2020 Jun; 48(2):246-253. PubMed ID: 31845110 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. An associability decay model of paradoxical choice. Daniels CW; Sanabria F J Exp Psychol Anim Learn Cogn; 2018 Jul; 44(3):258-271. PubMed ID: 29985043 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Failure to find a distance effect in pigeon choice. Bell MC; Sanabria F J Exp Anal Behav; 2017 Jul; 108(1):1-16. PubMed ID: 28542842 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Information preferences across species: Pigeons, rats, and dogs. Jackson SM; Lo GK; MacPherson K; Martin GK; Roberts WA Behav Processes; 2020 Jan; 170():104016. PubMed ID: 31785322 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Preferences for and against stimuli paired with food. Mazur JE J Exp Anal Behav; 1999 Jul; 72(1):21-32. PubMed ID: 10418156 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]