LEARNING AND MOTIVATION 7, 580-590 (1976)

Effect of Sample Presentation Time on Long-Delay

Matching in the Pigeon

DOUGLAS S.GRANT
University of Western Onturio. London. Ontario, Canada

The effect of sample stimulus presentation time on long-delay matching in highly

practiced pigeons was investigated. The birds were found capable of above
chance matching performance at a delay of 60 set provided the sample stimulus
was presented for 4 set or longer. Matching accuracy increased as a negatively
accelerated function of sample stimulus presentation time and decreased as a
negatively accelerated function of time since the termination of the sample. The
rate of forgetting was found to be independent of sample stimulus presentation
time. The data were inconsistent with a temporal discrimination interpretation
of the effect of presentation time on delayed matching. The data were interpreted
as supporting a simple trace strength and decay model of pigeon delayed matching.

Recent studies employing the delayed matching-to-sample task in

animals have led to the development of two theories: trace strength theory
to account for pigeon delayed matching (cf. Roberts & Grant, 1976)
and temporal discrimination theory to account for monkey delayed
matching (cf. D’Amato, 1973). According to trace strength theory, the
sample stimulus is stored as an internal representation called a memory
trace. The probability of a correct response at the time of the test is
directly related to the strength of the trace. Trace strength increases
as a negatively accelerated function of the duration of the sample stimulus
and, in the absence of the sample stimulus, decreases as a negatively
accelerated function of time. According to temporal discrimination
theory, the delayed matching task can be interpreted as a temporal
discrimination problem. That is, at the time of the test the animal must
decide which of two choice stimuli has most recently been presented
as the sample stimulus. Performance declines with increases in the reten-
tion interval because the temporal discrimination becomes more difficult.
As the retention interval increases, the ratio of the lengths of time since
the incorrect and correct choice stimuli were last presented as sample
stimuli decreases.
According to the temporal discrimination theory of pigeon delayed
matching, all forgetting is the result of interference from prior, conflicting
This research was supported by National Research Council of Canada Grant A7894
to William A. Roberts and by a grant from the University of Western Ontario to the
author. Requests for reprints should be sent to Douglas S. Grant, Department of Psychology,
University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T6G 2E9.

580
Copyright 0 1976 by Academic Press. Inc.
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
 SAMPLE DURATION AND MATCHING 581

memories. A prior, conflicting memory is a memory which would lead

to an incorrect response on the eurrent trial if the organism were to act
on the basis of that memory, while a prior, nonconflicting memory would
not lead to an incorrect response on the current trial. Thus, temporal
discrimination theory predicts that prior, conflicting memories should
increase the rate of forgetting of subsequent memories in pigeon delayed
matching. Grant (1975) has obtained data consistent with this prediction.
In a series of matching trials, trial 1 did not interfere with trial 2 retention
when neither the matching nor nonmatching color on trial 1 appeared
in a reversed role on trial 2. However, when the trial 1 colors appeared
in reversed roles on trial 2 (correct became incorrect and incorrect
became correct), forgetting on trial 2 was significantly increased relative
to a control which had not had trial 1. Thus, when the trial 1 memory
did not conflict with the trial 2 memory, no interference was obtained.
However, when the trial 1 memory did conflict with the trial 2 memory,
the rate of forgetting on trial 2 was increased.
Although Grant’s findings were consistent with temporal discrimination
theory, other interpretations are possible. Grant (1975; also see Roberts &
Grant, 1976) proposed that the mechanism responsible for proactive
interference in pigeon delayed matching is the competition of independent
memory traces at the time of the test. Successive stimulus events may
form separate and independent memory traces. While both traces
decay or lose strength as a negatively accelerated function of time in
the absence of the event, the presence of a prior trace in the memory
system affects neither the initial strength nor the rate of decay of a
second trace. The stronger of the two traces determines the choice
response at the time of the test.
The present experiment tested the temporal discrimination and trace
strength interpretations of pigeon delayed matching by studying the effect
of sample presentation time on delayed matching. Prior studies have
found that matching accuracy increases as a negatively accelerated
function both of the fixed ratio requirement on the sample stimulus
(Roberts, 1972) and of the length of time during which the bird was
exposed to the sample stimulus (Roberts & Grant, 1974). Although both
trace strength and temporal discrimination theory can account for these
effects, they employ different mechanisms. According to trace strength
theory, increases in presentation time increase the strength of the sample
stimulus memory trace, resulting in improved matching performance.
Temporal discrimination theory could propose that the current sample
stimulus retroactively interferes with the memory of prior sample stimuli.
Retroactive interference is accounted for by proposing that subsequent
visual events make prior visual events seem more distant in time
(D’Amato, 1973). Since it is known that the amount of retroactive
interference increases as the duration of the interfering stimulus increases
582 DOUGLAS S. GRANT

(Grant & Roberts, Note 1) it follows that the longer the presentation
time of the current sample stimulus, the greater is the retroactive
interference suffered by prior sample stimulus memories and, therefore,
the easier the temporal discrimination on the current trial. Thus, delayed
matching performance would be expected to increase as the sample
presentation time increased.
Various presentation times were studied and retention was tested at
various delays. The experiment was designed to eliminate or reduce
interference from prior trials by alternating the color pair being tested
(either red-green or blue-yellow) across trials by employing a relatively
long intertrial interval of 2 min. The percentages of correct responses on
each trial (except the first two trials of each session) were classified on the
basis of presentation time, delay, and the nature of the preceding trial
(either conflicting or nonconflicting). The theories make contrasting
predictions regarding two outcomes of the present experiment. First,
temporal discrimination theory predicts better performance on trials
preceded by a nonconflicting trial than on trials preceded by a conflicting
trial. If the manipulations discussed above are successful in eliminating
interference from prior, conflicting trials, the theory would predict no
forgetting across delays. In contrast, trace strength theory predicts
significant forgetting across delays, even in the absence of interference
from prior trials, due to trace decay. A second prediction derived from
temporal discrimination theory concerns the effect of presentation time
on delayed matching. If prior, conflicting trials interfere with performance
on the current trial, increases in presentation time should facilitate
performance. Moreover, the facilitative effect of presentation time should
be restricted to trials preceded by a conflicting trial. In the absence of
interference the theory predicts no effect of presentation time. In
contrast, trace strength theory predicts a facilitative effect of presentation
time regardless of the presence or absence of interference effects. In
addition, the effect of presentation time should be unaffected by the
nature of the preceding trial.
The present experiment also explored whether highly practiced
pigeons are capable of above chance matching at delays greater than
10 set because studies of delayed matching in relatively naive pigeons
report performance dropping close to chance by 10 set (Cumming &
Berryman, 1965). In contrast, highly practiced monkeys usually perform
above chance with delays of 2 min or more (D’Amato, 1973). Recently,
both D’Amato (1973) and Honig (Note 2) have commented upon the vast
differences in delayed matching retention demonstrated by monkeys and
pigeons. Although the superior performance of the monkey might result
from a species difference, it could also result from differences in level
of practice. Highly practiced pigeons may demonstrate levels of retention
in the same order of magnitude as highly practiced monkeys.
 SAMPLE DURATION AND MATCHING 583

METHOD
Subjects. Four Silver King pigeons served as subjects. The 4 subjects
were selected from the 10 that served in a prior study of pigeon delayed
matching (Grant, 1975). The birds were selected on the basis of their
high level of matching performance. They had previously received several
thousand trials in a delayed matching procedure with sample presentation
times of 0.5-8.0 set and delays of 0.0-30.0 sec. The present experiment
immediately followed the completion of the earlier experiments. The
birds were maintained at 80% of their free-feeding weight throughout
the experiment.
Apparatus. Two enclosed test cubicles for pigeons were used,
measuring 31 x 35.5 cm (floor dimensions) x 35.5 cm (wall height). Each
chamber contained a panel of three pecking keys (spaced 8 cm apart,
center to center) at the height of the pigeon’s head and a centrally
located grain aperture below the row of keys. Multistimulus projectors
mounted behind each key illuminated the keys with color stimuli. All
of the events of a day’s session of trials, stimulus presentations, delays,
and intertrial intervals were controlled by relays, timers, and counters
which were activated by a paper-tape reader. Printing counters recorded
choices on each trial.
Design. The experiment involved the factorial manipulation of two
factors, both as within-subjects effects. There were four levels of
sample presentation time, 1, 4, 8, and 14 set, and four levels of delay,
0,20,40, and 60 sec. The sample presentation time factor was manipulated
between days and the delay factor was manipulated within days.
Procedure. Subjects were tested on 32 trials per day. On each trial
the center key was illuminated with white light. An FR 1 was required
on the white light to introduce the sample stimulus. The sample stimulus
remained illuminated for the prescribed presentation time (1, 4, 8, or
14 set) regardless of the subject’s behavior. Following the termination
of the sample stimulus, a delay of 0, 20, 40, or 60 set intervened before
the two side keys were illuminated with a color matching the sample and a
nonmatching color. A single peck on the matching side key resulted in
a 2-set reinforcement followed by a 120-set intertrial interval. A single
peck on the nonmatching side key produced no reinforcement and
introduced the intertrial interval. Immediately following the inter-trial
interval, the center key was again illuminated with white light, initiating
the next trial. On each trial, one of two color pairs was tested: red-green
or blue-yellow. On red-green trials, one of these two colors served
as the sample and correct side key color while the other member of the
color pair served as the incorrect side key color. Similarly, on blue-
yellow trials, one of these two colors served as the sample and correct side
key color while the other member of the color pair served as the incorrect
side key color. Six trial sequences of 32 trials each were used. On each
584 DOUGLAS S. GRANT

sequence, each of the four delays appeared eight times, twice with each
of the four sample stimuli. Within each sequence, the color pair being
tested alternated between trials. On even-numbered trial sequences
(2, 4, and 6), odd-numbered trials were tests of the blue-yellow color
pair and even-numbered trials were tests of the red-green color pair.
On odd-numbered trial sequences (1, 3, and 5), odd-numbered trials
were tests of the red-green color pair and even-numbered trials were
tests of the blue-yellow color pair. Each bird received each of the
four presentation times paired with each of the six trial sequences
once during the 24-day experiment. All sessions were conducted in the
absence of the houselight; illumination came solely from the pecking keys.

RESULTS

Retention curves for the 1-, 4-, 8-, and 1Csec presentation conditions
are shown in Fig. 1. Each point is based on 48 observations per subject,
a total of 192 observations. Both delay and presentation time influenced
retention. Matching accuracy was a negatively accelerated increasing
function of sample presentation time and, in the absence of the sample
stimulus, matching accuracy was a negatively accelerated decreasing
function of time. To determine whether the points in Fig. 1 were above
a chance level of matching accuracy, each point was tested against a
50% baseline by at test. The 50% baseline was held to represent a chance
level of performance since Grant (Note 3) found that in the absence of
sample stimuli birds performed at a 50% level even though they were
experienced with respect both to delayed matching and to the specific
trial sequences used. D’ Amato and O’Neill(l970) suggested this pseudo-
matching procedure to determine the actual chance level. In the 4-, 8-,
and 1Csec presentation conditions, all points were significantly above
50% (p < .Ol in all 12 cases). In the 1-set presentation condition,

100
1
90
1

t
‘$ 70.

8
60.
5
wu
; 50-

404
0 20 40 60
DELAY ISEC I

FIG. 1. Retention curves for the I-. 4-. 8-. and 14-set presentation conditions
 SAMPLE DURATION AND MATCHING 585

performance was above 5O?Gat the 0- and 20-set delays (ps < .05) but did
not differ from 50% at the 40- and 60-set delays. A Subjects x Delay
x Presentation Time analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on
the data; in this ANOVA and in all further ANOVAs in this paper, the
level of significance was set atp = .05. The ANOVA revealed significant
effects of delay (F(3,9) = 458.15) and presentation time (F(3,9) = 26.94).
The Delay x Presentation Time interaction was not significant (F < 1).
The nonsignificant Delay x Presentation Time interaction indicated
that rate of forgetting, as indexed by the slope of the retention curves
in Fig. 1, was not affected by presentation time across the entire retention
interval. However, it is possible that rate of forgetting was significantly
affected by presentation time across a limited portion of the retention
interval, To explore this possibility, retention loss scores were calculated
between successive delays by subtracting the percentage at delays of
20, 40, and 60 set from the percentage at the next shortest delay. For
the 0- to the 20-set delay, the longer the presentation time, the faster the
rate of forgetting. For the 20- to the 40-set delay, there was no systematic
relationship between presentation time and rate of forgetting. For the 40-
to the 60-set delay, the longer the presentation time, the slower the rate of
forgetting, a relationship opposite to that obtained for the 0- to the 20-set
delay. To examine the statistical significance of these effects, separate one-
way ANOVAs were performed on the retention loss scores for each
portion of the retention interval (O-20 set, 20-40 set, and 40-60 set). All
three ANOVAs revealed a nonsignificant effect of presentation time
(F < I in all three cases).
To obtain evidence regarding the relative adequacies of the temporal
discrimination and the trace strength interpretations of the presentation
time effect, the data were broken down as a function of stimulus and its
location on prior trials. These are shown in Table 1. The percentage of
correct responses on the current trial, trial n, were classified on the basis of
delay, presentation time, and the nature of the preceding trial. In the upper
section of the table, the relationship between correct and incorrect colors
on the trial which preceded trial n by two trials, trial n - 2, and correct and
incorrect colors on trial n was used as the basis for the division. In the left
portion of the upper section of the table (reversed), the percentage of
correct trial IEresponses is presented when the correct and incorrect colors
on trial n - 2 were reversed on trial n (correct became incorrect and incor-
rect became correct). To the right of these data (nonreversed), the percen-
tage of correct trial n responses is presented when the correct and incorrect
colors on trial n - 2 remained the same on trial II (correct remained correct
and incorrect remained incorrect). In the middle portion of the table, the
percentages of correct responses on trial n were divided on the basis of the
similarity relationship between the correct and incorrect colors on trial
n - 1 and the correct and incorrect colors on trial n; blue and green were
586 DOUGLAS S. GRANT

TABLE 1
PERCENTAGEOFCORRECTRESPONSESONTRIAL~I ASAFUNCTION OFTHENATURE
OFTHEPRECEDINGTRIALATEACHPRESENTATIONTIMEANDDELAY

II - 2 Colors reversed n - 2 Colors nonreversed

Presentation
time (set) 0 20 40 60 0 20 40 60

1 75.3 58.6 57. I 46.9 83.1 61.8 57.7 57.5

4 89.6 61.4 64.1 54.8 94.0 67.4 58.3 65.0
8 96.6 67.5 71.7 65.4 98.0 79.4 60.7 61.3
14 97.7 67.5 67.3 69.2 100.0 79.4 72.6 63.8
Mean 89.8 65.3 65.1 59.1 93.8 72.0 62.3 61.9

n - 1 Color similarity n - 1 Color similarity

reversed nonreversed

0 20 40 60 0 20 40 60

1 83.8 56.2 67.6 50.7 77.1 68.1 50. I 51.6

4 93.5 65.3 63.6 58.7 92.0 72.9 59.7 61.3
8 100.0 76.1 66.8 65.8 96.0 71.6 66.7 62.9
14 98.9 70.8 71.3 58.8 99.0 77.4 67.3 71.8
Mean 94.1 67.1 67.3 58.5 91.0 72.5 60.9 61.9

n - 1 Position reversed n - I Position nonreversed

0 20 40 60 0 20 40 60

1 75.5 61.2 53.1 51.9 86.1 62.7 63.0 53.0

4 90.5 72.1 64.3 60.6 94.7 64.5 59.1 58.3
8 96.6 76.2 66.8 73.6 98.7 70.8 66.6 58.3
14 99.1 73.4 69.3 68.9 98.7 76.3 69.6 63.3
Mean 90.4 JO.7 63.4 63.8 94.6 68.6 64.6 58.2

considered similar and yellow and red were considered similar. On the left
(reversed), the percentage of correct responses on trial n is shown when the
correct color on trial IZ - 1 was similar to the incorrect color on trial n and
when the incorrect color on trial n - 1 was similar to the correct color on
trial n. On the right (nonreversed), the percentage of correct responses
on trial n is shown when the correct color on trial n - 1 was similar to
the correct color on trial n and when the incorrect color on trial n - 1
was similar to the incorrect color on trial n. In the lower portion
of the table, the data on trial n were divided on the basis of the rela-
tionship between the correct side key position on trial n - 1 and
the correct side key position on trial n. On the left (reversed), the
correct side key position on trial II - 1 became incorrect on trial n.
On the right (nonreversed), the correct side key position on trial n - 1
remained correct on trial II. In each portion of the table, trial n trials which
were preceded by a prior, conflicting trial are shown on the left (reversed).
 SAMPLE DURATION AND MATCHING 587

and trial iz trials which were not preceded by a prior, conflicting trial are
shown on the right (nonreversed). Trials were specified as conflicting
or nonconflicting without regard to the response made by the bird,
because Grant (1975) found interference when either one of the trial one
stimuli appeared in a reversed role on trial 2.
Table 1 reveals that the percentage of correct responses on trial n was
not affected by the nature of the preceding trial. Even in the absence of
interference, substantial forgetting was obtained. Moreover, the per-
centage of correct responses on trial n tended to increase as the presen-
tation time increased in all three portions of the table, and there appeared
to be no consistent difference between the effect of presentation time
on the data presented in the two halves of the table. A Subjects x Delay
x Nature of the Preceding Trial (conflicting-nonconflicting) x Presenta-
tion Time ANOVA was performed on the data from each section of
the table. All three ANOVAs revealed significant effects of delay
(Fs(3,9) = 221.91, 280.44, and 163.81 for upper, middle, and lower
sections of the table, respectively) and presentation time (Fs(3,9) = 20.87,
33.39, and 16.72). All three ANOVAs revealed a nonsignificant effect
of the nature of the preceding trial, conflicting-nonconflicting (Fs(1,3)
= 2.67, .Ol, and .05) and a nonsignificant Nature of the Preceding Trial
x Presentation Time interaction (Fs(3,9) = 1.1.7, .72, and 2.63). In the
ANOVA performed on the data from the uppel’ section of the table, the
triple interaction, Delay x Nature of the Preceding Trial x Presentation
Time, was significant (F(9,27) = 3.46). The exact cause of this interaction
was difficult to pinpoint, but increasing the presentation time from
1-4 to 8- 14 set did not produce completely comparable effects on
the data in the two halves of the table across all four delays.
Although the data in Table 1 indicate the absence of interference
effects produced by a prior conflicting delayed matching trial, it is
possible that significant interference was generated by a more general
source. That is, it could be argued that interference was gradually
built up across trials within a session and that a collection of prior trials,
rather than a particular prior trial, produced interference. If such were
the case we would expect performance in the final quarter of a session
to be inferior to performance in the first quarter of the session. To test
this notion, the percentage of correct responses on trials l-7 was
evaluated against that on trials 25-32. Collapsing across delay and
presentation time, the percentage correct on the first eight trials was 70.73
and on the last eight trials was 71.03.

DISCUSSION

Consistent with prior research employing the pigeon (Roberts,

1972; Roberts & Grant, 1974), it was found that matching accuracy
was a negatively accelerated increasing function of sample presentation
time and a ,negatively accelerated decreasing function of time since
588 DOUGLAS S. GRANT

the termination of the sample. In addition, the rate of forgetting was

not significantly affected by the presentation time factor. This finding
is consistent with Roberts’ study, but Roberts and Grant found evidence
which suggested that forgetting may occur more rapidly the greater the
initial strength of the memory. They proposed that the amount forgotten
over any given time interval was a constant proportion of the current
trace strength. Roberts and Grant pointed out that this assumption was
one questionable aspect of their theory, and the results of the present
experiment indicate that the assumption may be incorrect. The amount
forgotten over any given delay appears to be independent of current
trace strength and should be regarded as a constant.
The present experiment demonstrated that highly practiced pigeons
are capable of above chance matching performance with a delay of
60 set, provided the sample stimulus was presented for 4 set or longer.
There is no reason to conclude that 60 set represents the limit of delay
in pigeon delayed matching. With continued training and gradually
increasing delays, above chance matching performance might be obtained
at delays longer than 60 sec. In any case, the present data suggest
that retention in highly practiced pigeons may be more comparable to
retention in highly practiced monkeys than was previously held (D’Amato,
1973; Honig, Note 2).
In contrast to the findings regarding presentation time and delayed
matching accuracy in the pigeon, D’Amato and Worsham (1972),
employing sample presentation times of .075, .lO, .15, and .45 set,
found that matching performance in two highly practiced capuchin
monkeys was not affected by sample duration. In contrast, the present
study and earlier ones with pigeons show that performance improves
with increasing presentation time whether the pigeons are practiced
or not. On the other hand, a recent experiment (Herzog, Grant, & Roberts,
Note 4) suggests that level of prior delayed matching experience may
determine whether a presentation time effect is obtained in the monkey.
A stumptail and two squirrel monkeys, each with no prior delayed
matching experience, served as subjects, and presentation times of
.5, 2.5, 5, and 10 set were employed. Increases in presentation time
generally led to improved performance across delays of 0, 2, 5, and
10 sec. Performance at the 2.5-, 5-, and IO-set presentation times
was superior to that at the .5-set presentation time. These findings
suggest that delayed matching is affected by variations in sample
presentation time when monkeys are ntive.
In sum, both pigeons and monkeys with little delayed matching
experience demonstrate improved performance at longer presentation
times. Whereas this effect remains in the highly practiced pigeon, the
effect is not demonstrated in the highly practiced monkey. Perhaps
the monkey possesses some type of higher level process (perhaps
 SAMPLE DURATION AND MATCHING 589

rehearsal) not possessed by the pigeon. With sufficient practice, the

monkey may learn to employ this higher level process with great efficiency,
allowing the monkey to perform well on delayed matching regardless
of sample presentation time.
The results are inconsistent with temporal discrimination theory. Two
predictions derived from the theory were disconfirmed by the findings
of the present experiment. First, in the absence of interference from
prior trials the theory must predict no forgetting. This prediction was
disconfirmed by the finding that significant forgetting was obtained in
the absence of interference from prior trials. A second prediction
derived from the theory is that, in the absence of interference from
prior trials, the facilitative effect of increases in presentation time should
be eliminated. This prediction was disconfirmed, because increases
in presentation time had a facilitative effect on performance in the
absence of interference from prior trials.
The inability of temporal discrimination theory to account for the
effect of presentation time indicates that the theory is not an adequate
interpretation of pigeon delayed matching. On the other hand, Roberts
and Grant (1976) have shown trace strength theory to be a powerful and
parsimonious interpretation both of repetition and spacing studies
(Roberts, 1972; Roberts & Grant, 1974) and of interference studies
(Grant & Roberts, 1973; Grant, 1975, Note 3). The results of the present
experiment support trace strength theory.

REFERENCES
Cumming, W. W., & Berryman, R. The complex discriminated operant: Studies of
matching-to-sample and related problems. In D. I. Mostofsky (Ed.), Stimulus
generalization. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1965, Pp. 284-330.
D’Amato, M. R. Delayed matching and short-term memory in monkeys. In G. H. Bower
(Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and
theory. New York: Academic Press, 1973. Vol VII.
D’Amato, M. R., & O’Neill, W. Matching behaviors: Some methodological problems.
Behavior Research Methods and Instrumentation, 1970, 2, 162-164.
D’Amato, M. R., & Worsham, R. W. Delayed matching in the capuchin monkey with
brief sample durations. Learning and Motivation, 1972, 3, 304-312.
Grant, D. S. Proactive interference in pigeon short-term memory. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 1975, 1, 207-220.
Grant, D. S., & Roberts, W. A. Trace interaction in pigeon short-term memory. Journal
of Experimental Psychology, 1973, 101, 21-29.
Roberts, W. A. Short-term memory in the pigeon: Effects of repetition and spacing.
Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1972, 94, 74-83.
Roberts, W. A., & Grant, D. S. Short-term memory in the pigeon with presentation
time precisely controlled. Learning and Motivation, 1974, 5, 393-408.
Roberts, W. A., & Grant, D. S. Studies of short-term memory in the pigeon using
the delayed matching-to-sample procedure. In D. L. Medin, W. A. Roberts, &
R. T. Davis (Eds.), Processes of animal memory. Hillsdale. N.J.: Erlbaum,
1976.
590 DOUGLAS S. GRANT

REFERENCE NOTES
1. Grant, D. S., & Roberts, W. A. Retroactive interference in pigeon short-term
memory: Effect of point and length of interpolation. Manuscript in preparation.
2. Honig, W. K. Experimental epistemology: Current research on attention, association,
and memory in animals. Text of an invited address read at meetings of the
Rocky Mountain Psychological Association, Denver, 1974.
3. Grant, D. S. Proactive interference and interfering memory decay time in pigeon
short-term memory. Manuscript submitted for publication, 1976.
4. Herzog, H. L.. Grant, D. S., & Roberts, W. A. Short-term memory for visual
stimuli in the monkey: Effects of presentation time and spaced repetition.
Manuscript submitted for publication.

Received January 25, 1975

Revised February 15, 1976