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.     

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.     

A search for symmetry in the conditional discriminations of rhesus monkeys, baboons, and children.

Procedures for generating arbitrary matching-to-sample performances may generate only conditional discriminations. Rational grounds for this distinction are proposed, based on the properties that any equivalence relation must possess. Empirical tests are described for determining whether subjects trained on conditional discriminations are also engaged in true matching to sample. A series of studies than leads to the conclusion that proof of true matching to sample by monkeys, pigeons, or baboons is yet to be provided. Whether the absence of such proof reflects experiential factors or species-defined limitations is not presently clear.     

Adventitious control by the location of comparison stimuli in conditional discriminations.

In a conditional discrimination procedure, samples appeared in a center key, and comparisons appeared in two of four outer keys. The location of comparison keys varied from trial to trial. Separate learning curves for each of the six possible pairs of comparison keys were plotted in a signal-detection space, revealing different patterns of progress on each pair. Also, when learned conditional discriminations were disrupted, pairs of keys differed in their patterns of disruption. Varying the location of comparison stimuli among six different pairs of keys had not eliminated key position as a controlling aspect of the stimuli. The variations simply increased the number of stimulus compounds--key position and experimental stimuli--that the subject learned. Plotting conditional-discrimination learning curves in a signal-detection space reveals relations among hits, false alarms, accuracy, and comparison preference that help to define a subject's progress.     

An analysis of generalized contextual control of conditional discriminations

This research asked whether performance engendered by contextual control procedures would generalize to novel matching-to-sample stimulus arrangements. Two studies were conducted with young adult participants. In Study 1, participants first were trained to perform the contextually controlled conditional discrimination, X-AB, where the sample-comparison relations A1B1 and A2B2 were reinforced in the presence of contextual stimulus X1, but the relations A1B2 and A2B1 were reinforced in the presence of X2. Then, a new conditional discrimination, CD, was established via an unreinforced-conditional-selection procedure. Next, participants were tested for X-CD contextual control performance. Participants selected the originally established CD relations in the presence of X1, but the opposite relations in the presence of X2. Next, an additional conditional relation, EF, was established. Then, participants received trials consisting of entirely novel contextual stimuli, Z1 and Z2, and EF samples and comparisons. Selections were consistent with contextual control; that is, participants selected the originally established EF relations in the presence of one of the novel contextual Z stimuli, but selected the opposite EF relations in the presence of the other contextual Z stimulus. Study 2 systematically replicated these results with naive participants and demonstrated the necessity of first establishing a conditional discrimination prior to tests for generalized contextual control. The findings are discussed in terms of unreinforced conditional selection, stimulus classes, and new ways in which contextual control performances can emerge.     

Differential sample response schedules in the acquisition of conditional discriminations by pigeons

Pigeons were trained on four matching-to-sample tasks with various schedule requirements in effect on the sample key. Differential sample-schedule requirements (a differential-reinforcement-of-low-rates of 3 sec in the presence of one sample and a fixed-ratio 16 in the presence of the other) produced rapid rates of acquisition that did not differ across tasks. Nondifferential sample-schedule requirements (fixed-ratio 1, fixed-ratio 16 or a differential-reinforcement-of-low-rates of 3 sec in the presence of both samples) produced slower rates of acquisition, which depended on the difficulty of the discriminations between samples and between comparisons. Patterns of stimulus and position preferences were influenced both by the comparison stimuli in each task and by the sample-schedule requirements. Detailed analyses of acquisition revealed frequent instances of complete differential sample control of comparison responding at intermediate levels of overall “accuracy”.     

Baseline training sequence affects speed of emergent conditional discriminations

We examined the effects of baseline training sequence on the emergence of conditional discriminations in an intraverbal naming task. Thirty‐two college students were randomly assigned to two groups. The tact‐intraverbal (TI) group first learned to vocally tact eight visual stimuli using a unique verbal label for each stimulus, and then to intraverbally relate four pairs of verbal labels. The intraverbal‐tact (IT) group received the same training but in the opposite sequence. Both groups then received a match‐to‐sample test involving the visual stimuli alone. On average, the TI group had significantly shorter reaction times than the IT group throughout all four test blocks, even when controlling for intraverbal retention, which was lower in the IT group. Accuracy on the MTS test did not differ significantly between groups when controlling for intraverbal retention. However, MTS accuracy and intraverbal retention were strongly correlated in the IT group but uncorrelated in the TI group. We suggest the effect of training sequence reflects different sources of stimulus control available to subjects in different groups when confronted with the novel MTS trials.     

Transfer of contextual stimulus function via equivalence class development

In a conditional discrimination, 6 college students arranged six Cyrillic letters into groups of three based upon which of two additional Cyrillic letters (contextual stimuli) was present. All subjects demonstrated symmetry and transitivity within each class of equivalent stimuli. In a second conditional discrimination, two more Cyrillic letters were related to each contextual stimulus. Testing of symmetrical and transitive relations between the original contextual stimulus and the two new ones confirmed the development of two three-member classes of contextual stimuli. Subsequent tests demonstrated that the new contextual stimuli controlled the previously trained sample-comparison relations for all subjects.     

Emergent, untrained stimulus relations in many-to-one matching-to-sample discriminations in rats

The present experiment investigated whether rats formed emergent, untrained stimulus relations in many-to-one matching-to-sample discriminations. In Phase 1, rats were trained to match two samples (triangle and horizontal stripes) to a common comparison (horizontal stripes) and two additional samples (circle or vertical stripes) to another comparison (vertical stripes). Then, in Phase 2, the rats were trained to match the one sample (triangle) to a new comparison (black) and the other sample (circle) to another comparison (white). In the Phase 3 test, half the rats (consistent group) were given two new tasks in which the sample-correct comparison relation was consistent with any emergent stimulus relations that previously may have been learned. The remaining 6 rats (inconsistent group) were given two new tasks in which the sample-correct comparison relation was not consistent with any previously learned emergent stimulus relations. Rats in the consistent group showed more accurate performance at the start of Phase 3, and faster learning to criterion in this phase, as compared with rats in the inconsistent group. This finding suggests that rats may form emergent, untrained stimulus relations between the discriminative stimuli in many-to-one matching-to-sample discriminations.     

Transfer of a conditional ordering response through conditional equivalence classes

Eight adult humans were taught conditional discriminations in a matching-to-sample format that led to the formation of two four-member equivalence classes. When subjects were taught to select one comparison stimulus from each class in a set order, they then ordered all other members of the equivalence classes without explicit training. When the ordering response itself was brought under conditional control, conditional sequencing also transferred to all other members of the two equivalence classes. When the conditional discriminations in the matching-to-sample task were brought under higher order conditional control, the eight stimulus members were arranged into four conditional equivalence classes. Both ordering and conditional ordering transferred to all members of the four conditional equivalence classes; for some subjects this occurred without a typical test for equivalence. One hundred twenty untrained sequences emerged from eight trained sequences for all subjects. Transfer of functions through equivalence classes may contribute to a behavior-analytic approach to semantics and generative grammar.     

Six-member stimulus classes generated by conditional-discrimination procedures

In conditional-discrimination procedures with three sets of stimuli, A, B, and C, three stimuli per set (A1A2A3, B1B2B3, and C1C2C3), subjects (children and adults) learned to select Set-B and Set-C comparisons conditionally upon Set-A samples (A1B1, A1C1, A2B2, A2C2, A3B3, A3C3). If the conditional-discrimination procedures also generated equivalence relations, three 3-member stimulus classes would be demonstrable, A1B1C1, A2B2C2, and A3B3C3. In addition to these three sets, the present experiments used three other sets of stimuli--D, E, and F. The subjects learned to select Set-E and Set-F comparisons conditionally upon Set-D samples (D1E1, D1F1, D2E2, D2F2, D3E3, D3F3). This established a second group of three 3-member stimulus classes, D1E1F1, D2E2F2, and D3E3F3. In all, two groups of three 3-member classes were established by teaching subjects 12 conditional discriminations. The two groups of 3-member classes were then combined (successfully for 5 of 8 subjects) into a single group of three 6-member classes by teaching the subjects three more conditional relations (E1C1, E2C2, and E3C3). With three other children, enlarging the classes one member at a time also produced 6-member classes. As a consequence of class formation, 60 untrained conditional relations emerged from 15 that had been explicitly taught. Six of the subjects also proved capable of naming the stimuli consistently in accord with their class membership, but two subjects demonstrated class formation even in the absence of consistent naming.     

Training sequence effects on emergent conditional discriminations: Replication and extension to selection-based training

We examined the replicability and generality of a previously reported training sequence effect on emergent conditional discriminations in the intraverbal naming task. In Experiment 1, a tact–intraverbal (TI) group learned first to vocally label 6 visual patterns and then to intraverbally relate pairs of verbal labels, whereas an intraverbal–tact (IT) group received the same training in the opposite sequence. Emergent conditional discriminations among pattern stimuli were assessed in match-to-sample (MTS) format. Experiment 2 was identical, except vocal tact and intraverbal training were replaced with selection-based training in which the verbal labels were text stimuli. Compared to the IT sequence, the TI sequence resulted in greater mean accuracy at test (Experiment 1), higher yields (Experiment 2), and shorter reaction times (Experiment 2). Experiment 2 data suggested the TI group's performance might be less dependent on intact intraverbal relations relative to the IT group, but related to participants' reports of visualization during intraverbal training. The results suggest the sequence effect is replicable and occurs in experimental preparations commonly used to study derived stimulus relations. They also provide novel support for the hypothesis that participant behavior during training alters sources of stimulus control available at test.     

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.     

Testing for symmetry in the conditional discriminations of language-trained chimpanzees

If subjects are taught to match Stimulus A to B and then, without further training, match B to A, they have passed a test of symmetry. It has been suggested that non-humans' lack of success on symmetry tests might be overcome by giving them a history of symmetry exemplar training, that is, by directly teaching a large number of conditional relations (e.g., AB, CD, EF,...) and also directly training the "reverse" of these relations (e.g., BA, DC, FE,...). The chimpanzee subjects of the present study, Sherman, Austin, and Lana, had already received extensive symmetry exemplar training as a result of attempts to teach a selection-based language system of lexigrams. The present study systematically subjected 2 of these chimps (Sherman and Lana), for the first time, to standard symmetry tests in controlled conditions. Both chimps failed the tests, even when their correct responses on test trials were reinforced. The findings do not support the exemplar training hypothesis, and cast doubt upon whether the chimps can pass tests of stimulus equivalence.     

The nature of standard control in children's matching-to-sample

In Experiment I, six preschool-aged children were given matching-to-sample training with two figures in which they were required to choose one of two comparison stimuli that was identical in shape to the standard stimulus. Following this training, they were given intermittent test trials in which a novel stimulus figure was substituted for the previously correct comparison stimulus. Five of the six subjects consistently chose the substituted stimulus during test trials. Experiment II replicated the findings of Experiment I with three other preschool-aged children. Experiment II also provided controls for the possibility that the subjects of Experiment I were selecting the substituted stimulus because of its novelty. The investigators concluded that eight of the nine subjects were exhibiting the type of control described by Berryman, Cumming, Cohen, and Johnson (1965) as S-delta responding.     

Conditional discrimination in mentally retarded adults: the effect of training the component simple discriminations.

Two subjects with retardation who exhibited generalized identity matching, but who had extensive histories of failure to acquire arbitrary matching, were exposed to a series of conditions designed to train separately the components of a two-choice conditional discrimination. First, the successive discrimination between the sample stimuli was established by programming a different schedule of reinforcement in the presence of each sample stimulus. Schedule performance was acquired and maintained by both subjects, but neither acquired arbitrary matching. To train the simultaneous discrimination between the comparison stimuli, 1 subject was then exposed to a series of simple discrimination reversals and subsequently failed to acquire arbitrary matching. Both subjects acquired arbitrary matching under a procedure that maintained both the sample and the comparison discrimination by first presenting entire sessions composed of one sample-comparison relation and then gradually reducing the number of consecutive trials with the same sample until sample presentation was randomized (schedule performance was maintained). Removal of the schedule requirement had no effect on arbitrary matching accuracy. Both subjects subsequently demonstrated control by relations symmetric to the trained relations.     

Transfer of matching-to-figure samples in the pigeon

Three pigeons were trained on a modified six-key matching-to-sample procedure. The third peck on the figure-sample key (which presented a bird, hand, face, beetle, rabbit, fish, flower, or red hue, as the sample) lighted only one comparison key. Every three additional pecks on the sample lighted another comparison key, up to a maximum of five keys. Pecks on keys of matching figures produced grain. Pecks on nonmatching keys (mismatches) turned off all lights on the comparison keys and repeated the trial. Three figures were used during acquisition. The birds learned to peck each sample until the matching comparison stimulus appeared on one of three comparison stimulus keys, and then to peck that key. Later, five novel stimuli, employed as both sample and comparison stimuli, and two additional matching keys were added. Each bird showed matching transfer to the novel samples. The data suggest that the birds may have learned the concept of figure matching rather than a series of two-component chains or discrete five-key discriminations.     

Speed analyses of stimulus equivalence.

The functional substitutability of stimuli in equivalence classes was examined through analyses of the speed of college students'' accurate responding. After training subjects to respond to 18 conditional relations, subjects'' accuracy and speed of accurate responding were compared across trial types (baseline, symmetry, transitivity, and combined transitivity and symmetry) and nodal distance (one- through five-node transitive and combined transitive and symmetric relations). Differences in accuracy across nodal distance and trial type were significant only on the first tests of equivalence, whereas differences in speed were significant even after extended testing. Response speed was inversely related to the number of nodes on which the tested relations were based. Significant differences in response speed were also found across trial types, except between transitivity and combined trials. To determine the generality of these comparisons, three groups of subjects were included: An instructed group was given an instruction that specified the interchangeability of stimuli related through training; a queried group was queried about the basis for test-trial responding: and a standard group was neither instructed nor queried. There were no significant differences among groups. These results suggest the use of response speed and response accuracy to measure the strength of matching relations.