Control of adolescents' arbitrary matching-to-sample by positive and negative stimulus relations.

In Experiment 1, four developmentally delayed adolescents were taught an A-B matching-to-sample task with nonidentical stimuli: given Sample A1, select Comparison B1; given A2, select B2. During nonreinforced test trials, appropriate matching occurred when B stimuli appeared as samples and A stimuli as comparisons, i.e., the sample and comparison functions were symmetrical (B-A matching). During A-B or B-A matching test trials in which familiar samples and correct comparisons were presented along with novel comparisons, the subjects selected the correct comparisons. In tests with familiar samples and both incorrect and novel comparisons, subjects selected the novel comparisons, demonstrating control by both positive ("matching") and negative ("nonmatching") stimulus relations in A-B and B-A arrays. In Experiment 2, 12 developmentally delayed subjects were taught a two-stage arbitrary-matching task (e.g., A-B, C-B matching). Test sessions showed sample-comparison symmetry (e.g., B-A, B-C matching) and derived sample-comparison relations (e.g., A-C, C-A matching) for 11 subjects. These subjects also demonstrated control by positive and negative stimulus relations in the derived relations.     

Emergent simple discrimination established by indirect relation to differential consequences

Three experiments examined a discrimination training sequence that led to emergent simple discrimination in human subjects. The experiments differed primarily in their subject populations. Normally capable adults served in the first experiment, preschool children in the second, and mentally retarded adults in the third. In all experiments, subjects learned a simple simultaneous discrimination: When visual stimuli A1 and A2 were displayed together, reinforcers followed selections of A1, the S+, but not A2, the S-. The subjects also learned a conditional discrimination taught with an arbitrary visual-visual matching-to-sample procedure. Comparisons were two additional visual stimuli, B1 and B2, and samples were A1 and A2. Reinforcers followed selections of B1 in the presence of A1 and of B2 in the presence of A2. After the simple-discrimination and conditional-discrimination baselines had been acquired, B1 and B2 were displayed alone (without a sample) on probe trials. Subjects had never been taught explicitly how to respond to such displays. Nonetheless, they almost always selected B1, which was involved in a conditional relation with A1, the stimulus that served as S+ on the simple-discrimination trials. This outcome suggested the formation of stimulus classes during conditional-discrimination training. Through class formation, B1 and B2 had apparently acquired stimulus functions similar to those shown by A1 and A2 on simple-discrimination trials, thereby leading to emergent selections of B1 on the probes.     

Common control by compound samples in conditional discriminations

We tested whether teaching control by single stimulus samples in conditional discriminations would result in common control of two-stimuli compound samples, and vice versa. In Experiment 1, 5 participants were first taught four single-sample conditional discriminations. The first conditional discrimination was as follows: given sample stimulus P1, select comparison stimulus A1 and not A2; given sample P2 select comparison A2 and not A1. The second conditional discrimination was as follows: given sample P1 select comparison B1 and not B2; given sample P2 select B2 and not B1. Different sample stimuli (Q1 and Q2) were used in the third and fourth conditional discriminations. Moreover, A1 and B1 were presented together as comparisons, such that, if Q1 was presented as the sample, A1 was correct and B1 was incorrect; and if Q2 was presented as the sample, B1 was correct and A1 was incorrect. A2 and B2 were also presented as comparisons. When Q1 was presented, A2 was correct and when Q2 was presented B2 was correct. After training with these four single stimulus sample discriminations, participants were tested with compound PQ samples presented with A1, A2, B1, and B2 as comparisons. If common control were established by the PQ stimuli, a participant would select A1 when P1Q1 was presented, A2 when P2Q1 was presented, B1 when P1Q2 was presented, and B2 when P2Q2 was presented. Such common control by PQ samples occurred in 4 of 5 participants. In Experiment 2, 4 participants were given reverse training. They were first taught to select the A1, A2, B1, and B2 stimuli in response to the appropriate PQ combinations and then probed on the single stimulus sample discriminations. All 4 participants were successful on this probe. Experiments 3 and 4 investigated the effects of teaching additional conditional discriminations with novel stimuli on subsequent transfer from the single-sample discriminations to performance on the compound-sample conditional discrimination.     

Emergent conditional discrimination in children: Matching to compound stimuli

This study reports two experiments that first taught preschool children identity-matching to compound sample and compound comparison stimuli. A compound stimulus consisted of a colour and a form superimposed on one another. Test sessions assessed whether children related the form and colour elements of a particular compound stimulus. The test for this was matching to sample in which an arbitrary conditional discrimination was required. A majority of the children selected the correct colour comparison in the presence of each form sample. The children also showed the reverse sample-comparison relations: they matched form comparisons to the corresponding colour samples, respectively. In the context of these arbitrary relations, new colours were paired with the form elements of the samples (Experiment 1), and new form elements were paired with the colour elements of the comparisons (Experiment 2). Subsequent tests assessed whether the new stimulus elements had control over responding when presented as single samples or comparisons. Test results showed that most subjects were able to relate the new stimulus elements to the corresponding colour and form elements, respectively. The study demonstrated that matching to compound stimuli in training and testing conditionsMaygenerate conditional relations between the individual stimulus elements.     

A derived transfer of simple discrimination and self-reported arousal functions in spider fearful and non-spider-fearful participants

Two experiments investigated the derived transfer of functions through equivalence relations established using a stimulus pairing observation procedure. In Experiment 1, participants were trained on a simple discrimination (A1+/A2-) and then a stimulus pairing observation procedure was used to establish 4 stimulus pairings (A1-B1, A2-B2, B1-C1, B2-C2). Subsequently, a transfer of the simple discrimination functions through equivalence relations was observed (e.g., C1+/C2-). These procedures were modified in Experiment 2, which demonstrated that spider-fearful and non-spider-fearful participants show differing levels of a transfer of self-reported arousal functions for stimuli used in equivalence relations with video-based material depicting scenes with spiders. The results demonstrate that the stimulus pairing observation procedure provides a viable alternative to matching-to-sample, and also offer tentative support for a derived-relations model of the acquisition of anxiety responses in at least one sub-clinical population.     

Incongruous stimulus pairing and conditional discrimination training: effects on relational responding

In Experiment 1, 5 subjects were exposed to a stimulus-pairing procedure in which two nonsense syllables, identified by a letter-number code as A1 and C2, each predicted the onset of a sexual film clip, and the nonsense syllables A2 and C1 each predicted the onset of a nonsexual film clip. Subjects were then exposed to a matching-to-sample test in which the nonsense syllables A1 and A2 were presented as sample stimuli and C1 and C2 were presented as comparison stimuli and vice versa (i.e., C stimuli as samples and A stimuli as comparisons). All subjects matched A1 with C2 and A2 with C1. Subjects were then trained on the conditional discriminations A1-B1, A2-B2, B1-C1, B2-C2, after which the matching-to-sample test was again administered. All subjects continued to match A1 with C2 and A2 with C1 in accordance with the earlier stimulus-pairing contingencies. An additional 5 subjects were exposed first to conditional discrimination training and testing before being exposed to the incongruous stimulus pairing and matching-to-sample testing. Under these conditions, 4 of the 5 subjects always matched A1 with C1 and A2 with C2. Experiment 2 replicated Experiment 1, except that a matching-to-sample test was not administered following the initial training procedure. Under these conditions, matching-to-sample test performances were controlled by the contingencies that had immediately preceded the test. Experiment 3 indicated that initial matching-to-sample test performances were unlikely to change, even after repeated exposure to incongruous training and testing. Experiment 4 demonstrated that pretraining with unrelated stimulus sets increased the sensitivity of matching-to-sample test performances to incongruous contingencies when they were similar in format to those arranged during pretraining. These data may have implications for a behavior-analytic interpretation of attitude formation and change.     

Emergent Simple Discriminations and Conditional Relations in Children, Intellectually Impaired Adults,

Previous research has shown that when, under non-reinforced conditions, stimuli are added to S+ and S- stimuli in simultaneous discrimination tasks, transfer between paired stimuli is likely to occur. The present study examined whether this procedure also leads to the formation of conditional relations between paired stimuli. In Experiments 1, 2, and 3, normal pre-school children were trained on a simultaneous discrimination task with A1 reinforced and A2 not reinforced (A1+/A2- ). Then they received two tests (no programmed consequences): one with B stimuli superimposed on the A stimuli (A1B1/ A2B2), and one with B stimuli only (B1/B2). Subjects who selected A1B1 and B1 also received conditional discrimination tests: one with B1 or B2 as samples and A1 and A2 as comparisons (B-A), and one in which the functions of these stimuli were reversed (A-B). Intellectually impaired adults and normal adults served in Experiments 4 and 5, respectively. These experiments were basically the same except that the subjects were also given the opportunity to demonstrate transfer from B to C via BC (B1C1/B2C2 and C1/C2 tests). Most children (75%) and intellectually impaired adults (75%) treated the conditional discrimination probe tasks as simple discriminations and typically selected the trained and derived S+ stimuli. The remaining children, intellectually impaired adults, and all normal adults related all directly and indirectly linked stimuli of the same functions conditionally to one another (A-B, B-C, A-C, and vice versa). The present findings suggest that, as humans develop, conditional stimulus relations may emerge from tasks and stimulus configurations that are increasingly remote from traditional conditional discrimination tasks.     

Conditioned reinforcement and discrimination in second-order schedules

Pigeons were exposed to multiple second-order schedules in which responding on the “main key” was reinforced according to either a variable-interval or fixed-interval schedule by production of a brief stimulus on the “brief-stimulus key”. A response was required to the brief stimulus during its fourth (final) presentation to produce food; responses to the earlier brief stimuli indicated the extent to which the final brief stimulus was discriminated from preceding ones. Main-key response rates were higher in early components of paired brief-stimulus schedules, in which each brief stimulus was the same as that paired with reinforcement, than in comparable unpaired brief-stimulus or tandem schedules. Poor discrimination occurred between paired brief stimuli (Experiment I). When chain stimuli on the main key induced a discrimination between the first two and second two brief stimuli, the response-rate enhancement in the paired brief-stimulus schedule persisted (Experiment II). Rate enhancement diminished when the initial link of the chain included the first three components (Experiment IV). Eliminating the contingency between responding and brief-stimulus production also diminished rate enhancement (Experiment III). The results show that the discriminative and conditioned reinforcing effects of food-paired brief stimuli may be selectively manipulated and suggest that the reinforcing effects are modulated by other reinforcers in the situation.     

Degree of representation of the matching concept in pigeons (Columba livia)

In Experiment 1, 12 pigeons (Columba livia) were trained on a simultaneous matching-to-sample task with 2 stimuli and then tested with 2 novel stimuli. Half of the birds were trained with a fixed ratio schedule requirement of 1 (FR1) or 20 (FR20) pecks on the sample stimulus. None of the birds showed any evidence of concept-mediated transfer. In Experiment 2, 12 pigeons were trained with 3 stimuli and then tested with the same novel stimuli used in Experiment 1. Half of the birds in each group were trained with either an FR1 or FR20 requirement on the sample stimulus. Two of the FR20 birds showed high levels of transfer to the novel stimuli similar to that of monkeys in a previous study.     

Function transformation without reinforcement

In studies of function transformation, participants initially are taught to match stimuli in the presence of a contextual cue, X; the stimuli to be matched bear some formal relation to each other, for example, a relation of opposition or difference. In a second phase, the participants are taught to match arbitrary stimuli (say, A and B) in the presence of X. In a final test, A often displays behavioral functions that differ from those of B, and can be predicted from the nature of the relation associated with X in the initial training phase. Here we report function-transformation effects in the absence of selection responses and of their reinforcers. In three experiments with college students, exposure to relations of difference or identity modified the responses given to later stimuli. In Experiment 1, responses to a test stimulus A varied depending on preexposure to pairs of colors that were distinct from A but exemplified relations of difference or identity. In Experiment 2, a stimulus A acquired distinct functions, depending on its previous pairing with a contextual cue X that had itself been paired with identity or difference among colors. Experiment 3 confirmed the results of Experiment 2 with a modified design. Our data are consistent with the notion that relations of identity or difference can serve as stimuli for Pavlovian processes, and, in compound with other cues, produce apparent function-transformation effects.     

A transformation of respondently conditioned stimulus function in accordance with arbitrarily applicable relations.

Adult male subjects saw a sexual film clip paired with a nonsense syllable (C1). Similarly, an emotionally neutral film clip was paired with a second nonsense syllable (C3). Responses to the nonsense syllables were recorded as skin resistance responses. Subjects were also trained in a series of related conditional discriminations, using the C1 and C3 stimuli, from which the following equivalence relations were predicted; A1-B1-C1, A2-B2-C2, and A3-B3-C3. Some subjects were given matching-to-sample (equivalence) tests after the conditional discrimination training (Experiment 1), whereas others were not (Experiment 2). Subjects were tested for a transformation of eliciting functions by presenting the A1 and A3 stimuli, which were related through equivalence to C1 and C3, respectively. Five of the 6 subjects who showed significantly greater conditioned responses to C1 than to C3, also showed significantly greater skin resistance responses to A1 than to A3. Two additional subjects demonstrated a transformation of an eliciting stimulus function in accordance with five-member equivalence relations (Experiment 3), and another 5 subjects demonstrated similar effects in accordance with the relations of sameness and opposition (Experiment 4).     

Transfer of specific contextual functions to novel conditional discriminations

Three adolescents and 4 children participated in studies designed to examine contextually controlled conditional discrimination performance. In Study 1, participants selected Comparison B1 in the presence one stimulus (A1) and Comparison B2 in the presence of another stimulus (A2) using a matching-to-sample procedure. Next, contextual stimuli X1 or X2 were presented, such that in the presence of X1, selection of B1 given A1 and selection of B2 given A2 were reinforced; and in the presence of X2, selection of B2 given A1 and selection of B1 given A2 were reinforced. Then, new conditional discriminations were taught with Stimuli E and F. When the contextual Stimuli X1 and X2 were presented, participants selected the same comparisons as previously established in the EF relations in the presence of X1, but the opposite comparison as in the EF relations in the presence of X2. The results then were replicated with new Stimuli G and H. In Study 2, a new conditional discrimination, CD, was taught. Then, four combinations of two-element samples--C1 and D1, C2 and D2, C1 and D2, or C2 and D1--were presented with X1 and X2 as comparisons. Five of 6 participants selected X1 in the presence of C1 and D1 or C2 and D2, and selected X2 in the presence of C1 and D2 or C2 and D1. Finally, in Study 3, two new discriminations IJ and JK were taught. Then, the transitive IK relations were tested with X1 and X2 as contextual stimuli. The 4 participants selected K1 in the presence of I1 and K2 in the presence of I2 when the contextual stimulus was X1--demonstrating class formation--and selected the other comparisons when the contextual stimulus was X2. These results suggest that the contextual control functions of X1 and X2 transferred even to relations that had not been directly taught. These results extend those demonstrating generalized contextual control by showing transfer of functions of the contextual stimuli in transitivity tests and when the former contextual stimuli were presented as comparisons.     

Ambiguous-cue learning in preschool children: A test of the dimensional characteristics of task stimuli

Sixteen preschool children were administered a two-choice discrimination problem consisting of three stimulus compounds: the consistently rewarded stimulus, the consistently nonrewarded stimulus, and the ambiguous stimulus which was nonrewarded when paired with the positive, but rewarded when paired with the negative. When both pair of stimuli, positive-ambiguous and negative-ambiguous, were presented together the subject was required either to choose or to avoid the ambiguous stimulus depending upon the stimulus with which it was paired. In Experiment 1, when each of three stimuli (positive, negative, ambiguous) varied along one nonspatial cue dimension (color), performance was better on negative-ambiguous trials than positive-ambiguous trials. In Experiment 2, when the positive and negative stimuli varied along three nonspatial cue dimensions (colors and form) and the ambiguous stimulus varied along one of these dimensions (color), superior positive-ambiguous over negative-ambiguous performance was obtained. These findings complement those reported for other subjects and confirm Berch's (D. B. Berch, Learning and Motivation, 1974, 5, 135–148) predictions regarding use of differential numbers of cue dimensions.     

Use of an ambiguous-sample procedure to establish a cue to forget in pigeons

Pigeons were trained on a variation of the matching-to-sample task in which on double-sample trials two samples, one associated with each of the comparison stimuli, were presented successively. Responding to the comparison associated with the first sample was reinforced on half the double-sample trials, and responding to the comparison associated with the second sample was reinforced on the remaining half. One of two postsample stimuli was presented following the termination of each colored sample. A vertical line was presented after a correct or target sample, and a horizontal line was presented after an incorrect or interfering sample. With extended training, each bird demonstrated above-chance accuracy on double-sample trials, providing prima facie evidence that one or both of the postsample stimuli exerted control over matching behavior. Experiment 2 provided evidence that the horizontal line functioned as a cue to forget the code activated by the preceding sample stimulus. It was concluded that a condition sufficient to establish a postsample stimulus as a cue to forget is that the postsample immediately follow presentation of a sample that, if it were to control test responding, would lead to nonreinforcement.     

A transfer of functions through derived arbitrary and nonarbitrary stimulus relations

During Experiments 1 and 2, subjects were trained in a series of related conditional discriminations in a matching-to-sample format (A1-B1, A1-C1 and A2-B2, A2-C2). A low-rate performance was then explicitly trained in the presence of B1, and a high-rate performance was explicitly trained in the presence of B2. The two types of schedule performance transferred to the C stimuli for all subjects in both experiments, in the absence of explicit reinforcement through equivalence (i.e., C1 = low rate and C2 = high rate). In Experiment 2, it was also shown that these discriminative functions transferred from the C1-C2 stimuli to two novel stimuli that were physically similar to the C stimuli (SC1 and SC2, respectively). For both these experiments, subjects demonstrated the predicted equivalence responding during matching-to-sample equivalence tests. In Experiments 3 and 4, the conditional discrimination training from the first two experiments was modified in that two further conditional discrimination tasks were trained (C1-D1 and C2-D2). However, for these tasks the D stimuli served only as positive comparisons, and ND1 and ND2 stimuli served as negative comparisons (i.e., C1 × ND1 and C2 × ND2). Subsequent to training, the negatively related stimuli (ND1 and ND2) did not become discriminative for the schedule performances explicitly trained in the presence of B1 and B2, respectively. Instead, the ND1 stimulus became discriminative for the schedule performance trained in the presence of B2, and ND2 became discriminative for the schedule performance trained in the presence of B1. All subjects from Experiment 4 showed that the novel stimulus SND1, which was physically similar to ND1, became discriminative for the same response pattern as that controlled by ND1. Similarly, SND2, which was physically similar to ND2, became discriminative for the same response pattern as that controlled by ND2. Subjects from both Experiments 3 and 4 also produced equivalence responding on matching-to-sample equivalence tests that corresponded perfectly to the derived performances shown on the transfer of discriminative control tests.     

Right or wrong, familiar or novel in pictorial list discrimination learning

The interaction between nonassociative learning (presentation frequencies) and associative learning (reinforcement rates) in stimulus discrimination performance was investigated. Subjects were taught to discriminate lists of visual pattern pairs. When they chose the stimulus designated as right they were symbolically rewarded and when they chose the stimulus designated as wrong they were symbolically penalised. Subjects first learned one list and then another list. For a "right" group the pairs of the second list consisted of right stimuli from the first list and of novel wrong stimuli. For a "wrong" group it was the other way round. The right group transferred some discriminatory performance from the first to the second list while the control and wrong groups initially only performed near chance with the second list. When the first list involved wrong stimuli presented twice as frequently as right stimuli, the wrong group exhibited a better transfer than the right group. In a final experiment subjects learned lists which consisted of frequent right stimuli paired with scarce wrong stimuli and frequent wrong stimuli paired with scarce right stimuli. In later test trials these stimuli were shown in new combinations and additionally combined with novel stimuli. Subjects preferred to choose the most rewarded stimuli and to avoid the most penalised stimuli when the test pairs included at least one frequent stimulus. With scarce/scarce or scarce/novel stimulus combinations they performed less well or even chose randomly. A simple mathematical model that ascribes stimulus choices to a Cartesian combination of stimulus frequency and stimulus value succeeds in matching all these results with satisfactory precision.     

Emergent simple discrimination in children: Transfer of stimulus control under non-reinforced conditions

Previous research on humans suggests that simple discriminations may emerge if both stimuli, B1 and B2, are compounded with the stimuli of a previously trained discrimination, A1 (S+) and A2 (S-), and responding to the compounds, B1A1 and B2A2, is reinforced. Two questions were addressed. First, do simple discriminations also emerge if (a) only one stimulus, B1, is compounded with a training stimulus, A1 (S+) or A2 (S-); or with both training stimuli, A1 (S+) and A2 (S-); and (b) neither B1 nor B2 is compounded with the training stimuli? Second, do simple discriminations emerge if reinforcement in the presence of the AB compounds is withheld? Normal preschool children served as subjects. The study consisted of six experiments. Transfer occurred in all experiments regardless of whether both test stimuli, one test stimulus, or none of the test stimuli were compounded with the training stimuli under non-reinforced conditions. The results can be described by the following rules: Respond to any stimulus that includes a component of a “correct” stimulus of a previous discrimination. Otherwise, respond away from the stimulus that incorporates a component from an “incorrect” stimulus of a previous discrimination. The implications of data for sensory pre-conditioning and language-based accounts are discussed.     

Testing response-stimulus equivalence relations using differential responses as a sample

This study tested the notion that an equivalence relation may include a response when differential responses are paired with stimuli presented during training. Eight normal adults learned three kinds of computer mouse movements as differential response topographies (R1, R2, and R3). Next, in matching-to-sample training, one of the response topographies was used to select a comparison stimulus B (B1, B2, or B3) conditionally upon presentation of sample stimulus A (A1, A2, or A3), and to select stimulus D (D1, D2, or D3) conditionally upon presentation of stimulus C (C1, C2, or C3). After two sample-comparison-response relations (ABR and CDR) were established, 18 sample-comparison relations were tested (BA, DC, RA, RB, RC, RD, AC, CA, AD, DA, BC, CB, BD, DB, AA, BB, CC, and DD). In the RA, RB, RC, and RD tests, the differential responses (R1, R2, and R3) were used as sample stimuli. All subjects made class-consistent comparison selections in the tests. This study provides evidence that responses may become members of an equivalence class.     

Contexts of a person's prior intentions facilitate observational learning in 2.5-year-old children

We examined whether contexts suggesting an actor's prior intentions facilitate observational learning in 2.5-year-olds. In Experiment 1, children observed an experimenter handle one box before proceeding to open a second box. In two prior intention conditions, children either watched the experimenter extract a toy from the first box or saw that the box had already been opened. In two no prior intention conditions, children watched the demonstration with only the second box or paired with irrelevant actions upon the first box. Children successfully opened the second box more often in the two prior intention conditions than in the two no prior intention conditions. Experiment 2 investigated stimulus generalization as another explanation for these results. A functionally different trap-tube task served as the pre-demonstration apparatus. Before watching the experimenter open the box, children either saw her extract a toy from the tube with a stick or observed the toy accidentally fall from the opening. In both cases, children opened the box at similar high rates. We discuss children's use of others’ prior intentions or observable outcomes in observational learning.     

The emergence of symmetry in a conditional discrimination task using different responses as propioceptive samples in pigeons

In Experiment 1, 10 pigeons were exposed to a successive symbolic matching-to-sample procedure in which the sample was generated by the pigeons' own behavior. Each trial began with both response keys illuminated white, one being the "correct" key and the other the "incorrect" key. The pigeons had no way of discriminating which key was correct and which incorrect, since these roles were assigned on a random basis with the same probability of 0.5 for each key. A fixed ratio of five responses was required on the correct key. However, each time the pigeon pecked the incorrect key, the correct key response counter reset. Five consecutive pecks on the correct key was the only way to end this component, and switch off both key lights. Two seconds later, these same keys were illuminated again, one green and the other red (comparison stimuli). Now, if the correct white key had been on the left, a peck at one color produced food, and if the correct white key had been on the right, a peck at the other color produced food. When the pigeons had learned this discrimination, they were exposed to several symmetry tests (simultaneous presentations of both keys illuminated the same color-i.e., both red or both green), in order to interchange the sample with the comparison stimuli. In Experiment 2, the importance of requiring discrimination between the samples and between the comparisons was analyzed. In Experiment 3, we compared the results of Experiment 1 with a slightly different experiment, which resulted in discrimination of key position, an exteroceptive stimulus. The results showed that symmetry emerged only when different responses were used as samples.