THE EFFECT OF PROLONGED EXPOSURE TO VISUAL PATTERNS ON LEARNING
TO DISCRIMINATE SIMILAR AND DIFFERENT PATTERNS1
ELEANOR J. GIBSON, RICHARD D. WALK, HERBERT L. PICK, JR., AND THOMAS J. TTGHE
Cornell University
The experiments to be reported are part of
a program devoted to the investigation of the
role of certain kinds of prolonged visual stim-
ulation on visual discrimination of patterns.
The basic technique has been that of giving
an experimental group an opportunity to view
patterned stimuli from birth until 90 days of
age, and then requiring them to discriminate
these patterns. Performance on the discrimina-
tion is compared with that of a control group
raised in the usual cage environment. In our
first experiment, a control group was raised in
ordinary mesh cages surrounded by card-
board walls. The experimental group was
raised in a similar environment, but a black
metal cutout was hung on each of the four
walls, circles on two sides and triangles on two
sides. The results (1) showed a significant
difference between the two groups in speed of
learning to discriminate the circle from the
triangle in the test series. Many questions
arose, at this point, as to the interpretation of
the difference. The one which interested us
most was whether the facilitation observed
was specific to the exposed figures (the only
ones tested), or whether it was a more general
effect, possibly dependent on the degree of
similarity between the exposure and test
patterns. It is this problem—the generality
or specificity of the effects of prolonged ex-
posure—with which the present experiments
are concerned.
EXPERIMENT I
Is facilitation of discrimination by pro-
longed exposure a matter of identifying a
particular pattern, or is some more general
process responsible? The experimental design
to answer this question included four groups of
animals. Group E\ was identical with the
experimental group of the original experiment.
1
This research was supported in part by a grant
from the National Science Foundation. The first ex-
periment was reported to the Experimental Psychology
Group in Oxford, England, April, 1956, and at the
American Psychological Association in September, 1956.
584
Triangles and circles were exposed on the cage
walls, and at 90 days discrimination learning
of the same shapes began. Group d was con-
trol group for EI. At no time during the experi-
ment were there metal patterns on the cage
walls, but discrimination learning began at 90
days. Group £2 had triangles and circles ex-
posed on the cage walls from birth on, like
Group EI. But at 90 days they learned a dis-
crimination between an ellipse and an isosceles
triangle. These forms were chosen because
they are members of the families of perspective
transformations to which the circle and equi-
lateral triangle belong. The shapes were
approximately equal in area to the cage figures
(circle was 2% in. in diameter, base of equi-
lateral triangle was 3 in.). The ratio of the
axes of the ellipse was 2^' to 1, and the base
of the isosceles triangle was equal to the long
dimension of the ellipse. Group C-2 was a con-
trol for Group E2. No forms were exposed on
the cage walls, but at 90 days, the animals
learned to discriminate the ellipse and the
isosceles triangle.
Method
Subjects. The 5s were albino rats born in the Cornell
laboratory. Litters were split when the animals were
1 to 3 clays old, so that control and experimental groups
could be matched by distribution of littermates between
them. The N was 13 in Groups EI and Ci, 15 in Eo,
and 14 in Co.
Rearing. The animals of all four groups were raised
in similar mesh cages, each cage containing a mother
and a mixed litter averaging about seven young. The
mothers were removed at weaning, and sexes were sepa-
rated. Each cage was surrounded by white cardboard
walls, 6 in. from the cage, on four sides. Only the ceiling
was visible above. The room was lighted at all times
(but the lighting fixtures were not visible to the rats).
Food and water were always available in the cages.
The two experimental groups were treated differently
in one way only: black metal cutout triangles and
circles were hung on the cage walls from birth on. There
was one cutout to each wall, and these were moved
around the cage at intervals so that their spatial prox-
imity to food and water would be random. The cutouts
remained on the cage walls throughout, until discrimina-
tion training was completed.
Apparatus for discrimination learning. A Grice-type
 EXPOSURE TO VISUAL PATTERNS
discrimination box was used, like that described
by Gibson and Walk (1). Two discrimination
chambers adjoined each other so that S need
not be handled during a day's training. In a
given trial the animal was faced by two
stimuli, a black triangle (equilateral for Groups Ei
and Ci and isosceles for K-2 and C?), and a black circle
(E! and Ci) or ellipse (E5 and C2). These were painted
on a white background, the same size as the cutouts,
and stood side by side. Food was obtained by pushing
open a small door in the center of the pattern painted
on the stimulus holder. The door was locked for the
negative stimulus. Doors could be lowered over the two
stimulus patterns at the end of a trial, or if an error
were made. The animal then turned around, went
through the door separating the two choice compart-
ments, and again faced the two patterns. No punish-
ment was employed, but if the animal made an error,
both doors were instantly lowered over the stimulus
patterns, and the animal went to the other compartment
for a second choice. If the animal made three errors on
one trial, it was permitted to open the door in the
positive stimulus pattern without going to the other
compartment. A trial was thus denned as choice of the
correct door (R or L) leading to reinforcement, and
might be preceded by as many as three incorrect choices.
Procedure. Discrimination training began at about
90 days. Pretraining the animals to open the small
doors and eat from the stimulus holders took 3 to 4
days and was done with plain black holders. Then
10 trials a day were given with the patterns in place.
The learning criterion was 18 correct out of 20 responses,
with the last 10 in succession correct. The animals
were run 6 days a week until they reached criterion, or
until they had been run for 30 clays.
There were two Es, each of whom ran half the
animals. The circle or ellipse was positive for half the
animals, the triangle (equilateral or isosceles) for the
others.
Res-lilts
Replication of original experiment. A com-
parison of Groups G! and Ei permits a check on
the results of our original experiment, Since
the next experiment also duplicated these
groups, the two replications will be considered
here together. The mean number of trials to
reach criterion was 144 and 134, respectively,
for the two experimental groups, and 163 for
both control groups. The original trend is thus
corroborated in both experiments. If animals
from the two experiments are combined, there
is a difference of 23 trials between Groups EI
and Ci. The significance of this difference is
between the .01 and .02 level of confidence
with a one-tailed test. It seems, therefore,
that the facilitating effect of exposure to
visual patterns is confirmed, but the difference
is not as striking as it was in the original ex-
periment.
585
A comparison of errors for the two groups
again shows the experimental group superior
to the control group. The mean number of
initial errors was 57 for Group C and 49 for
Group E. The difference is small, and, taken
alone, not significant (p = .06).
Variability among the animals was great.
The control animals ranged from 75 to 222
trials to reach the criterion, and the cxperimen-
tals from 72 to 202. The importance of splitting
litters among the experimental conditions
seems obvious, as does the necessity of replica-
tion.
Specificity of transfer. Table 1 presents
means for the four grotips run in the present
experiment, for total errors and trials to
criterion. Group £2, as well as Group E1( was
superior to its control group in both errors
and trials. The t tests for EX vs. Cx and for Ea
vs. Co were significant at the .05 level of con-
fidence for both trials and total errors, with a
one-tailed test. Since the ellipse-isosceles dis-
crimination was easier than the circle-equi-
lateral discrimination, the two experimental
groups must be compared relative to their
control groups. Percentage facilitation was
therefore calculated. As Table 1 shows, the
facilitation was from 12% to 18%, and is no
greater for Group EI than for Group Eg. Similar
patterns are discriminated as easily as ones
identical with the exposed pattern after pro-
longed exposure.
Our results suggest, therefore, that what the
animal learns from viewing the triangle and
circle on the cage walls is not a specific identi-
fication of these two patterns. If pattern dis-
crimination itself is a function of learning, as
Hebb for one has suggested (4), the learning
TABLE 1
Mean Number of Trials to Learn, Mean Total Errors,
and Per cent Facilitation* for
All Groups, Experiment I
%
Facil-
Mean Total Mean Trials itation Facil-
A' Group Errors to Learn itation
(Total (Trials)
F.)
13 Et 89.9 143.7 17 12
13 f~t
108.6 162.5
15 E, 59.2 97.6 15 18
14 C-> 69.6 120.1
* Per cent facilitation ~ -w°-£ x 100.
586 ELEAXOR GIBSOX, RICHARD WALK, HERBERT PICK, JR., AXD THOMAS TIGHK

process would have lo be one which accounts are present. We tried, therefore, to vary the
for some equivalence of stimuli. One hy- exposure patterns from the test patterns as
pothesis might be a learning theory of shape widely as possible. This turned out to be diffi-
constancy. As the animals walk and climb cult; if curves and corners are possibly the
about the cage, the patterns yield transforma- crucial features, what kind of pattern has
tions varying continuously in shape and size. neither? A double-barreled plan was finally
There will be constant common features with settled on, in an attempt to get around this
concomitant variation of other features. All problem. Horizontal and vertical stripes were
t h e dimensions of transformation might be chosen as different patterns for test stimuli,
categorized to yield something analogous to for groups which had circles and triangles as
a concept of triangle and circle. A second hy- exposure patterns. Also, other groups were
pothesis might assume that the common fea- run which had what were supposed to be
tures which stay constant through changes of "formless" objects on the cage walls, to pro-
viewing distance and orientation (here such vide something to fixate there but a something
attributes of shape as curves and corners) with no pronounced pattern characteristics.
become capable of operating as stimuli. The Rocks, painted black, were chosen for this.
animal might be learning to respond to de- The}' were smaller than the cutout shapes and
rivatives of points of stimulation, namely, were irregularly formed, with rough surfaces.
angles and curves. These are relational char- They hung inside the cage.
acteristics of stimulation; perhaps they must
be discovered by a learning process which re- Method
peated viewing permits (2).
Six groups of rats were run in this experiment. Their
But. the present results could be equally differences are summarized in Table 2. As usual, llie
well explained by a third hypothesis without
supposing that the animals' sensitivity to TABLE 2
patterns or features of them has been improved Experimental Design
at all. Perhaps the animals with patterns on
the cage walls develop auxiliary habits of Cage Discrimina- IDiscrimina-
Groups
looking which facilitate the visual discrimina- Stimuli ; tion 1 tion 2
tion (e.g., looking upward or "attending" to
the stimuli present for vision). Why such c, ; None T-C X'one
Co ; None H-V T-C
habits should be learned is not entirely clear, E, T-C T-C None
since looking upward, responding to visual E; T-C H-V T-C
stimuli instead of, say, olfactory stimuli, and CE, ; Rocks T-C XTone
so on are not reinforced. If looking itself is CE2 j Rocks H-V T-C
reinforcing, as Harlow suggests (3), we must Xote.—T, triangle; C, circle; II, horizontal stripes; V, vertical
assume here that the animal that has had stripes.
something to look at tends to look more.
TABLE 3
EXPERIMENT II Mean Number of Trials Required lo Reach Criterion
This experiment was designed in an effort and Mean Initial Errors for All Six Groups
to determine whether the generalized facilita- 1 Mean Trials Mean Errors
tion was due to something completely unspeci- V
lic, like viewing habits, or whether it was clue T-C H-V T-C H-V
I
to some process inherent in the development of
discrimination. Development of pattern dis- E, 10 ! 133.8 46.6
E,, 8 I 130 50.4 44.9 14.1
crimination might proceed along dimensions, C, 8 i 162.5 51.1 :
as has been suggested, and account for gen- C2 9 137.2 46 50.4 ; 12.6
eralization where similarities or common fea- CE, 11 ! 138.9 47
!
tures of stimuli are involved. In such a case, CE2 8 138.5 39.9 41.9 11.4
we should expect the generalization to break Xote.—T, triangle; C, circle; H, horizontal stripes; V, vertical
down when no common features of stimulation stripes.
 EXPOSURE TO VISUAL PATTERNS
main experimental group had cutout triangles and
circles on the cage walls. Two such groups were run,
EI and E->. Group EI was tested on a triangle-circle
discrimination in the usual fashion at about 90 days.
Group E-i, however, at 90 days learned the horizontal-
vertical stripe discrimination. Afterward, they also
discriminated the triangle and circle. Two control
groups were run to match these; neither had cage pat-
terns. Group C\ learned the triangle-circle discrimination
at 90 clays, as usual. Group Co learned the stripe dis-
crimination at 90 daj'S, followed by triangle-circle.
Groups CEi and CE-> had rocks hung on each of the cage
walls. One group learned the triangle-circle discrimina-
tion at 90 days; the other first discriminated the stripes,
and afterward, the triangle and circle.
Details of method were precisely as in the foregoing
experiment, and need not be repeated. Litters were
split at birth or two days of age and distributed among
three groups. Two -Es ran the animals, each running
half of each group.
Results
The principal results are presented in Table
3. The standard EI group was superior in learn-
ing the discrimination to the standard control,
Ci, and the difference has already been dis-
cussed in the previous section. The other com-
parisons merit only the briefest discussion,
since by /- tests none of the differences reached
a satisfactory significance. The three groups
which learned to discriminate the striations do
not vary significantly from one another, al-
though two of them had some kind of cage
exposure. The striations, it may be noted, are
a very easy discrimination. Furthermore,
learning the striations before learning the tri-
angle-circle discrimination lowers the mean
trials to criterion only in the case of the con-
trol group, and even here the difference is not
significant. The main comparison which we
wished to make was the ease of discriminating
the triangle and circle after viewing rocks,
with the same discriminatioii after viewing
the triangle and circle. Group CEi, in this case,
does have lower mean scores than the control
group Ci, but the difference is not significant.
The evidence in favor of specificity (superiority
587
of Group EI) does not permit a firm conclusion,
since this group did not differ significantly
from Group CEi. The problem which concerned
us, the exploration of the apparent generality
of the effect, is unfortunately not much clari-
fied.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION'S
1. Two experiments were performed in an
attempt to discover whether exposure of visual
patterns on cage walls has a specific facilitating
effect on visual discrimination learning, or
whether facilitation is of a generalized sort.
In one experiment the effect of pattern ex-
posure was tested by discrimination of identical
patterns and of similar patterns. In the other,
the exposure pattern and the pattern to be
discriminated were varied as much as possible.
2. Exposure of visual patterns on the cage
walls was found to facilitate learning a dis-
crimination between the same patterns, con-
firming results of a previous experiment.
3. Exposure of visual patterns on the cage
walls also facilitated learning a discrimination
between patterns similar to, but not identical
with, the exposed ones.
4. When cage pattern and test pattern were
made very different, no significant transfer
effects were found.
REFERENCES
1. GIBSON, E. ]., & WALK, R. D. The effect of pro-
longed exposure to visually presented patterns
on learning to discriminate them. J. coinp. pliysiol.
Psychol, 1956, 49, 239-242.
2. GIBSON, J. J., & GIBSON, E. J. Perceptual learning:
Differentiation or enrichment? Psychol. Rev.,
1955, 62, 32-41.
3. HARI.OW, H. F. Motivation as a factor iu the acquisi-
tion of new responses. In J. A. Brown et al.,
Current llieory and research in motivation. Lincoln:
Univer. Nebraska Press, 1953.
4. HEBB, D. 0. The organization of behavior. New York:
Wiley, 1949.
Received December 14, 1956.