Acquisition of arbitrary conditional discriminations by young normally developing children

Three experiments investigated conditions designed to facilitate acquisition of arbitrary conditional discriminations in 3- to 6-year-old normally developing children. In Experiment 1, 6 subjects failed to master the arbitrary match-to-sample task under conditions of differential reinforcement alone, but 7 subjects did so when instructions or instructions and sample naming were added. In Experiment 2, sample naming introduced in a blocked-trial arrangement resulted in acquisition, but only when the sample name was a nonsense syllable provided by the experimenter (5 of 7 subjects) and not when the sample name was generated by the subject (0 of 5 subjects). Experiment 3 demonstrated the effectiveness of a training sequence involving thematically related stimuli as an intermediate step facilitating the transition from identity to novel arbitrary relations. The difficulties in mastering arbitrary conditional discriminations shown here imply that further analyses with young children will be particularly important in efforts to investigate the development of theoretically important stimulus relations.     

Overtraining, extinction and shift learning in a concurrent discrimination in rats

Two experiments examined the influence of overtraining on the reversal of a concurrent discrimination. After rats are trained to criterion on two different discriminations in the same apparatus, the reversal of one of these proceeds more rapidly than when both are reversed. If the reversal is conducted after overtraining on the original discriminations, then the opposite pattern of results is observed. That is, learning about the reversal of both discriminations is more rapid than when only a single discrimination is reversed. Experiment 1 replicated this effect and suggested that it is not caused by differences in the rate of extinction during reversal learning. In order to test a cue-association account for these findings, Experiment 2 examined the effect of exchanging the negative stimuli of a concurrent discrimination. This manipulation had a disruptive influence on performance, but only when subjects were not overtrained on the original discrimination.     

Matching- and nonmatching-to-sample concept learning in rats using olfactory stimuli

Previous research has shown that rats can learn matching-to-sample relations with olfactory stimuli; however, the specific characteristics of this relational control are unclear. In Experiment 1, 6 rats were trained to either match or nonmatch to sample in a modified operant chamber using common household spices as olfactory stimuli. After matching or nonmatching training with 10 exemplars, the contingencies were reversed with five new stimuli such that subjects trained on matching were shifted to nonmatching and vice versa. Following these reversed contingencies, the effects of the original training persisted for many trials with new exemplars. In Experiment 2, 9 rats were trained with matching procedures in an arena that provided for 18 different spatial locations for comparison stimuli. Five subjects were trained with differential reinforcement outcomes and 4 with only one type of reinforcer. Differential outcomes and multiple exemplars facilitated learning, and there was strong evidence for generalization to new stimuli for most rats that acquired several conditional discriminations. Performances with novel samples were generally above chance, but rarely reached the high levels obtained during baseline with well-trained stimulus relations. However, taken together, the data from the two experiments extend previous work, show that rats can learn both match and nonmatch relations with different experimental protocols, and demonstrate generalization to novel sample stimuli.     

Conditional discrimination in mentally retarded subjects: programming acquisition and learning set.

In Experiment 1, 3 subjects with retardation were exposed to two visual-visual arbitrary matching-to-sample problems each day. One conditional discrimination was presented under trial-and-error conditions, and the other was presented under a component training procedure. The latter began by establishing the comparison discrimination and its rapid reversal. The successive discrimination between the sample stimuli was established through differential naming. Then, sample naming was maintained in conditional discrimination sessions in which the same sample was presented in blocks of consecutive trials. Block size was decreased across sessions until sample presentation was randomized as in trial-and-error training (but with naming maintained). Two subjects initially learned only with component training. The performance of the 3rd subject was inconsistent across conditional discriminations. One of the successful subjects ultimately learned rapidly and consistently with trial-and-error procedures. Experiment 2 sought to demonstrate learning set in the other 2 subjects. Elements of the component training procedure were withdrawn over successive conditional discriminations. Ultimately, 1 subject nearly always learned under trial-and-error conditions, and the other learned under trial-and-error conditions combined with differential sample naming.     

Comparing positive and negative patterning in human learning

In human causal learning, positive patterning (PP) and negative patterning (NP) discriminations are often acquired at roughly the same rate, whereas PP is learned faster than NP in most experiments with nonhuman animals. One likely reason for this discrepancy is that most causal learning scenarios encourage participants to treat the presentation and omission of the relevant outcome as two events of comparable significance and likelihood. To investigate this, the current experiments compared PP and NP using a predictive learning paradigm based on a mock gambling task. In Experiment 1, one outcome (winning) was made more salient by being less frequent than the alternative outcome (losing). Under these circumstances, PP was learned faster than NP. In Experiment 2, subjects learned two PP and two NP discriminations, one involved win versus no change outcomes, the other involved lose versus no change outcomes. The subjects learned PP faster than NP, but only when discriminating win from no change. We argue that a difference in difficulty between PP and NP relies on a difference in the salience of the outcomes, consistent with the predictions of a relatively simple model of associative learning.     

Comparing positive and negative patterning in human learning

In human causal learning, positive patterning (PP) and negative patterning (NP) discriminations are often acquired at roughly the same rate, whereas PP is learned faster than NP in most experiments with nonhuman animals. One likely reason for this discrepancy is that most causal learning scenarios encourage participants to treat the presentation and omission of the relevant outcome as two events of comparable significance and likelihood. To investigate this, the current experiments compared PP and NP using a predictive learning paradigm based on a mock gambling task. In Experiment 1, one outcome (winning) was made more salient by being less frequent than the alternative outcome (losing). Under these circumstances, PP was learned faster than NP. In Experiment 2, subjects learned two PP and two NP discriminations, one involved win versus no change outcomes, the other involved lose versus no change outcomes. The subjects learned PP faster than NP, but only when discriminating win from no change. We argue that a difference in difficulty between PP and NP relies on a difference in the salience of the outcomes, consistent with the predictions of a relatively simple model of associative learning.     

Conditional discrimination in mentally retarded adults: the development of generalized skills.

The development of generalized conditional discrimination skills was examined in adults with retardation. Two subjects with histories of failure to acquire arbitrary matching under trial-and-error procedures were successful under procedures that trained one or more prerequisite skills. The successive discrimination between the sample stimuli was established by training the subjects to name the stimuli. The simultaneous discrimination between the comparison stimuli was established using either (a) standard simple discrimination training with reversals or (b) a procedure in which each of the two sample-comparison relations in the conditional discrimination was presented in blocks of trials, with the size of the blocks decreasing gradually until sample presentation was randomized. The amount of prerequisite training required varied across subjects and across successive conditional discriminations. After acquiring either two or three conditional discriminations with component training, both subjects learned new conditional discriminations under trial-and-error procedures. In general, each successive conditional discrimination was acquired more rapidly. Tests showed that conditional responding had become a generalized skill. Symmetry was shown for almost all trained relations. Symmetry trial samples were ultimately named the same as the stimuli to which they were related in training.     

Performance of pigeons on delayed simple and conditional discriminations under equivalent training procedures

A pair of experiments investigated the short-term memory of pigeons under delayed simple and conditional discriminations. Trial sequences in both discriminations consisted of a color as the sample stimulus, a memory interval, a line orientation as the test stimulus, and a trial outcome, which was either food reinforcement or blackout. Pecking rates during the test stimulus defined discrimination performance. In the simple discrimination, the sample provided the necessary information regarding the subsequent trial outcome. In the conditional discrimination, the sample and test stimuli conjointly provided this information. In Experiment 1, the two procedures were compared with independent groups of pigeons. In Experiment 2, the comparison was made within subjects. The simple discrimination was acquired more quickly and was performed better with a memory requirement. Introduction of long delays disrupted performance even at shorter delays in both discriminations. Postulation of prospective as well as retrospective mediating processes facilitates the interpretation of these results.     

Discrimination of structure: I. Implications for connectionist theories of discrimination learning

In each of 4 experiments animals were given a structural discrimination task that involved visual patterns composed of identical features, but the spatial relations among the features were different for reinforced and nonreinforced trials. In Experiment 1 the stimuli were pairs of colored circles, and pigeons were required to discriminate between patterns that were the mirror image of each other. A related task was given to rats in Experiment 2. Subjects solved these discriminations. For Experiment 3, some pigeons were given a discrimination similar to that used in Experiment 1, which they solved, whereas others received a comparable task but with 3 colored circles present on every trial, which they failed to solve. The findings from Experiment 3 were replicated in Experiment 4 using different patterns. The results are difficult to explain by certain connectionist theories of discrimination learning, unless they are modified to take account of the way in which compound stimuli are structured.     

Discrimination training of mirror-image stimuli with a delayed-prompt technique: some critical dimensions of extra-stimulus prompts

Research on fading and delay procedures has shown that extra-stimulus prompts frequently fail to help children learn difficult discriminations. The present study analyzed two delay conditions for an extra-stimulus prompt to help preschoolers discriminate mirror-image stimuli as a function of the configurations and locations of the prompts. All subjects were selected on their ability to discriminate the task stimuli in the presence of a third stimulus, a replica of the S+ and an arrow pointing to that stimulus; and on their inability to do so without these stimuli. Experiments 1 and 2 compared these prompt configurations (S+ replica, arrow) when presented equidistant from the task stimuli. Experiment 3 analyzed the contribution of the replica configuration in terms of its location, in between stimuli or immediately above the S+. Experiment 4 investigated the extent to which the results of the previous experiments could be influenced by the methodology for the assessment of prompt control. The results consistently demonstrated that most subjects did not learn the task unless the extra-stimulus prompt had the same configuration as the S+ and was located equidistant from both task stimuli.     

Enclosure shape influences cue competition effects and goal location learning

In virtual-environment spatial-learning procedures, Experiment 1 investigated blocking of learning about distal landmarks beyond the walls of an enclosure following preliminary training to find a goal using local landmarks within the enclosure. Separate sets of blocking and control groups searched within enclosures that, in plan view, formed either a square or a circle. Blocking was apparent when training and testing occurred in the circular but not the square enclosure. In Experiment 2, preliminary training to find a goal using local landmarks blocked spatial learning based on a circular enclosure divided into four differently coloured sections. The results are discussed in relation to theories of incidental versus error-correcting learning linked to different types of spatial cue.     

Relational Learning in Pigeons?

Two experiments investigated whether discrimination learning and transposition by pigeons were facilitated by the opportunity to compare rectangles differing in luminance or stars differing in number of vertices. In Experiment 1, one group was trained with stimuli from the same dimension appearing simultaneously on each trial, but for a second group such stimuli appeared on separate trials. The opportunity to compare stimuli from the same dimension on a single trial facilitated the learning of the luminance discrimination but not of the stars discrimination. Such comparison also resulted in greater luminance but not greater stars transposition. Using a different training procedure, Experiment 2 confirmed that the opportunity for comparison facilitated a luminance discrimination. The results for the star discrimination are entirely consistent with 'absolute' theories of discrimination learning; but the results for the luminance discrimination suggest some kind of 'relational' learning. Given the difference between the star and luminance discriminations, a low-level, sensory theory of relational learning seems most consistent with the data.     

Food delivery as a conditional stimulus: Feature-learning and memory in pigeons

Three experiments investigated the learning and memory of discriminations based on presence versus absence of a pre-trial food delivery. In Experiment 1 half the illuminations of a response key were followed by food regardless of the subject's behavior. In one group an extra food delivery preceded only reinforced trials (feature-positive condition), whereas in a second group it preceded only nonreinforced trials (feature-negative condition). Key pecks and approaches revealed more rapid and superior discrimination learning in the first group. Experiment 2 replicated the results of Experiment 1 but yielded no evidence that greater “unexpectedness” of pretrial food conditions facilitates discriminative performance. In Experiment 3, individual pigeons trained on a conditional discrimination exhibited a within-subject feature-positive superiority. Delay between pretrial and trial stimuli interacted with feature-positive versus feature-negative training in both the between-group (Experiment 2) and within-subject (Experiment 3) procedures: performance was decremented at both short and long delays in the feature-positive condition but was decremented only at longer delays in the feature-negative condition. The feature-positive superiority obtained here is incompatible with explanations based on either the general concept of “perceptual organization” or on the conditional nature of feature-negative discriminations.     

Learning when reward is delayed: a marking hypothesis

Rats were trained on spatial discriminations in which reward was delayed for 1 min. Experiment 1 tested Lett's hypothesis that responses made in the home cage during the delay interval are less likely to interfere with learning than responses made in the maze. Experimental subjects were transferred to their home cages during the delay interval, and control subjects were picked up but then immediately replaced in the maze. Contrary to Lett's hypothesis, both groups learned. Further experiments suggested that handling following a choice response was the crucial variable in producing learning: No learning occurred when handling was delayed (Experiment 2) or omitted (Experiment 3). One possible explanation for the fact that handling facilitated learning is that it served to mark the preceding choice response in memory so that subjects were then more likely to recall it when subsequently reinforced. In accordance with this interpretation, learning was found to be just as strong when the choice response was followed by an intense light or noise as by handling (Experiment 4). The implication of marking for other phenomena such as avoidance, quasi-reinforcement, and the paradoxical effects of punishment is also discussed.     

Formation of new stimulus equivalence classes by exclusion

This study presents three experiments that aimed to show the formation of stimulus equivalence relations among stimuli that had been previously related only by exclusion. In Experiment 1, participants were trained on baseline conditional discriminations to establish two 3‐member equivalence classes. Then, they were exposed to exclusion trials, without feedback, in which undefined stimuli had to be matched by rejecting the defined baseline stimuli. Finally, participants responded to test trials evaluating the emergence of symmetry and transitivity among the undefined stimuli from the exclusion trials. For half of the participants, the stimuli related by exclusion were introduced as S‐ stimuli in the baseline trials, whereas for the other half they were not. Further, half of the participants were assessed for emergent relations with stimuli from all the classes, whereas the other half was assessed for emergent relations with only the stimuli related by exclusion. In Experiment 2, the S‐ comparisons in the emergent relations test trials with stimuli only related by exclusion were stimuli from a null class. In Experiment 3, the number of exclusion trials was doubled. Across experiments, most participants showed emergence of equivalence relations among the stimuli related by exclusion. Some conditions of stimulus control associated with exclusion learning and the emergence of equivalence relations are discussed.     

The merger and development of equivalence classes by unreinforced conditional selection of comparison stimuli

Three experiments assessed the likelihood that subjects with histories of equivalence class development would respond conditionally on new discriminations in the absence of differential consequences for responses. In the first two experiments, two groups of subjects with different experimental histories, but whose performances showed four equivalence classes, responded on trials without explicit reinforcement involving samples from two of the classes and comparisons from the other two classes, in a two-choice matching-to-sample format. Subjects consistently selected a particular comparison in the presence of a particular sample. Subsequent tests showed the emergence of equivalence relations between stimuli from classes linked by the unreinforced conditional selections. Subsequently, in Experiment II, the subjects' responses in the conditional selection trials were reinforced if the selection was reversed from that made previously. Although reversed selection was maintained, 2 of the 3 subjects continued to perform on equivalence relation trials according to their original unreinforced selections. In the third experiment, these 2 subjects responded on a series of conditional discriminations involving three new pairs of sample stimuli and one new pair of comparison stimuli. No explicit reinforcement followed responses on any trial in this experiment. Subsequent tests for equivalence between sample stimuli revealed the development of two equivalence classes.     

Some detrimental effects of using extra stimuli to guide learning in normal and autistic children

This study was designed to assess the effectiveness of using prompts (extra "guiding" stimuli) for teaching normal and autistic children. One group of normal children was pretrained on a color discrimination. Later, the colors were used as prompts (presented simultaneously with new training stimuli) to teach four new discriminations. Another group of normal children was trained on the same discriminations with a trial-and-error procedure (i.e., no prompting). A third group consisted of autistic children who were trained on these discriminations using the prompt procedure. Analyses of the results showed the following. (1) The trial-and-error group of normal children acquired more discriminations than the prompt group of normal children. (2) A comparison of the two prompt groups showed that the autistics failed to transfer from the prompt cue to the training cue more often than the normal children; rather, the autistics generally continued responding to the faded color cue. (3) Autistic and normal children who failed to acquire the discriminations when trained with a prompt procedure did acquire these discriminations when no prompt was used. That is, the results suggest that the presentation of an extra guiding stimulus was detrimental to the acquisition of training discriminations for all subjects, and particularly so far autistic children. Therefore, the common practice of providing extra guiding stimuli in proportion to the severity of the learning disorder may actually be harmful to the learning of new skills. Implications of these results for future research are discussed.     

Implicit motor sequence learning is not purely perceptual

Many reports have indicated that implicit learning of sequences in a choice response time task is primarily perceptual; subjects learn the sequence of stimuli rather than the sequence of motor responses. Three experiments tested whether implicit motor sequence learning could be purely perceptual: no support was found for that hypothesis. Subjects who merely watched stimuli did not learn the sequence implicitly (Experiment 1), and sequence learning transferred robustly to a different set of stimulus cues (Experiment 2). In the final experiment, the stimulus-response mapping was changed at transfer so that one group of subjects pushed the same sequence of keys but saw new stimuli, whereas another group pushed a different sequence of keys but saw the same stimuli. Transfer to the new mapping was shown only if the motor sequence was kept constant, not the perceptual sequence. It is proposed that subjects learn a sequence of response locations in this and similar tasks.     

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).