I realize I need to expand on my Step 3 from last post instead of lumping all the progressions into one.
3. Introduce secondary target: a green tiny plastic sword for cockatails - haha. Secondary target is touched with target stick, and N. hollandicus must touch secondary target, rather than target stick itself, in order to procure reward.
4. After success with Step 3, multiple secondary targets are introduced in addition to first, for total of 3 targets. All targets are plastic cocktail sticks, referred to as "swords" with the subjects due to characteristics of first target used, i.e. "green sword", "clear sword" and "white sword". (I'll have to teach the birds how to read 1950s Vegas typefaces another day, then we can use "Mirage swizzle" and "Bellagio stick" as alternative names.)
5. After success with Step 4, a different and larger set of targets replace the "swords".
Observations:
I don't have notes on the early period of the experiment, but after a few sessions, both birds had learned to touch the stick for a treat (Steps 1-2) and after a few more sessions, had readily learned to touch the green TPS for their treat instead (Step 3). After several days on Step 4 (about two sessions per day), both subjects were regularly attaining an estimated 90% success rate with the 3 "sword" targets. I would touch a given swizzle stick with my own target stick, give the verbal cue, e.g., "Clear sword", and the bird would touch the correct "sword" on the first try.
I realized that with only 3 targets total to choose from, it was pretty easy as a challenge. I needed to change the targets for several reasons: i) to ensure that the subjects weren't unduly focusing on the swizzle sticks and missing the point of targetting; ii) to get more persuasive results with a more difficult task; and iii) to keep them stimulated and interested in "playing clicker". Furthermore, the green sword had been broken by a certain bird who shall remain nameless, so my idle fantasy of teaching the birds a little fencing routine were dashed for the time being. They did like picking up the green sword and swashing it around, though, and I still think they're handsome and charismatic enough to be movie stars!
It was time to move on to Step 5. I needed some new targets that were colourful, distinct, in a set greater than 3, and preferably less fragile than the swords, so I got the Fisher Price kids. I'll post a photo of all the Materials used in the experiment, which will better explain my problem.
The Fisher Price kids turned out to be a Pandora's Box of linguistics.Upon first glance, they appeared to be a fairly simple set of toys: 2 girls, 2 boys, 2 in green, 1 in blue, 1 in red, 2 hairless, 1 with blonde hair, 1 with red-orange hair, 3 with peach complexion, 1 with dark brown complexion. I first referred to them by clothing colour and gender, i.e., "green girl", "red boy", "green boy", "blue girl", before I realized that I was imposing my own cultural bias. The toys had no genitalia, and I was assuming their sex based on hair, clothing and torso shape. Of course men could wear long hair, pigtails and frilly collars as well as women, and women could be hairless also. Who am I to judge someone else's gender based on my own antiquated notions of masculinity or femininity? I'm not proud of my prejudices, and I didn't want to pass them on to innocents.
The verbal cues became longer, to the tune of "yellow-haired blue kid" and "bald kid in red" and other equally long-winded and inconsistent phrasing. Not only were the birds unlikely to learn the names of the colours, but I was worried that they were not even associating the verbal cues with the proper targets, even if they understood the concept of colour. When the toys were standing upright, the birds would often touch the head of the toy, not the coloured torso. I then tried to rename the targets but I couldn't come up with neutral and sensible names for them based on their upper characteristics. Was the hair "blonde" or "yellow"? "Red" or "orange" or "red-orange" hair? Were the follicularly challenged toys "bald", "shaved", "hairless" or just "sparse"? Was the dark-skinned toy "black" or "brown" or what?
An added complication was that Bird B would often get frustrated during training and throw or shove targets off the work table, and he appeared to have a particular distaste for the "red kid with no hair" who happened to be the only one with a dark brown-skinned head. Now, I don't think B is racist, but rather that he has some unresolved issues with brown plastic things (if you know him, you know what I'm talking about, and if you don't, I'm not at liberty to discuss his personal history here) but I still wasn't wild about the implications of training B to peck at and attack brown anthropomorphic entities on the head. His attack instincts are well-honed enough for me already, thank you very much.
The birds must have been about as confused as I was, since they never picked up on the training with the Fisher Price targets to any great degree of success. I think Bird C did do a bit better than B, as usual. Bird C tends to pick up on new challenges faster, and Bird B seems to learn from C's success (Model/Rival, much like what I read about in Pepperberg's The Alex Studies) as long as he's not too frustrated and if he's in the mood to indulge me.
A couple days ago, I moved on to the semi-precious gemstones as the new targets, starting with the set of 5 as pictured. These targets were comparatively easy to name by physical characteristics: "green rock", "clear rock", "shiny rock", "rust rock" and "pink rock". I've become more aware of the importance of simplicity in verbal cues, and now I simply say firmly "green rock" or sometimes "touch green rock", instead of "[Bird C], touch the green rock, please." I do praise quite effusively when I get excited, but that's when they're eating their rewards and not likely to be distracted by anything that comes out of my mouth. I figure the verbal cue needs to be clarifying rather than confusing, and it's not worth the confusion to impose human etiquette on them right now.
2007/6/27 Notes
I did 4 early sessions yesterday, and repeated this twice more through the day, whenever the birds seemed receptive and a bit hungry, thus motivated. I alternate sessions with each bird so they don't get too frustrated watching the other one eat.
Session C1:
A lot of misplaced targetting as C goes for stick quite frequently, rather than target rock. B gets excited watching C get rewards and jumps down to compete. I separate them before an all out rumble ensues.
Session B1:
A lot of trial and error for B, as he touches different rocks for each task. High frustration, pushes rocks off table.
Session C2:
Higher success this round, about 5 minutes after Session C1. C goes for target rock instead of target stick, with high success in choosing correct rock. Sometimes, he seems to "forget" which rock I had touched. With a repeated verbal cue, C appears to pause and think about the verbal cue, then correctly touch the indicated target rock.
Session B2:
Higher success than B1 as well. Less frustration and more concentration on task.
Session C3 (hours later):
Very successful with target rocks. Good focus, long attention span.
Session B3:
Attacks targets. B quite successful when he focuses, but B is short on attention and long on frustration. (We need to work on that!)
I plan to record observations more quantitatively from now on. I also want to figure out how to incorporate the Model/Rival strategy more. As evidenced in the above notes, B often feels so compelled by the rival aspect that he jumps down to compete directly with C for the task's reward. B's success rate in these instances is close to if not exactly 100%. However, I don't want to encourage too much direct competition, since B is physically stronger, more aggressive, and has a sharper beak than C and I'd worry for C's safety. Not to mention a possible breakdown of the relatively harmonious relationship between the two if B saw C too regularly as a rival rather than friend. Looks like I can use a human model after all.
Added note: In previous Model/Rival strategies with the birds, B has always been very receptive. C did not care at all. It seems that C is internally motivated (by his stomach, to be exact!) to learn and succeed, whereas B is perhaps more motivated by the social interaction and by not being "left behind". (Insert further analysis of B's psyche based on past traumatic experiences.)
No comments:
Post a Comment