{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03871681415929203, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0055309734513274336, 'mean_word_length': 4.915032679738562, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Second-order conditioning of the pigeon's key-peck using an autoshaping procedure.

Second-order conditioning of the pigeon's key-peck was established using an autoshaping procedure. In the first experiment, pigeons came to peck a response key, the second-order conditioned stimulus (CS2), when it was paired with another key (CS1) that had previously been paired with food delivery. In the second experiment, pigeons again came to peck a key (CS2) when it was followed by a clicker (CS1) which had been paired with food delivery, even though the clicker itself had not evoked pecking. Responses to a second-order stimulus, therefore, need not resemble responses to the first-order CS. Furthermore, in both experiments, extinction of the first-order IS led to reduction in pecking CS2. These results were discussed in terms of the nature of the associations being formed during second-order conditioning.