Serial order effects in auditory discrimination by oddity and matching to sample

The oddity method and several matching-to-sample procedures were used for frequency and intensity discrimination by adult Ss. For all sequence tasks involving three choices, the Ss employed a decision strategy which resulted in a pattern of correctness that differed from the pattern of discriminability among the choice sounds. It was concluded that the use of signal detection theory for analysis of results had added an important dimension to the study, and it was recommended that this method of analysis be used in further attempts to relate sequential processes to various forms of verbal impairment.     

Effects of fixed-ratio sample and choice response requirements upon oddity matching

Three pigeons were trained on oddity matching in which either 1, 4, 8, 16, or 32 sample-key observing responses were required to turn off the sample stimuli and turn on the comparison stimuli. Oddity accuracy increased when the observing-response requirement was raised and decreased when the requirement was lowered. Next, while the observing requirement was maintained at one response, the number of responses required to the comparison stimuli was either 1, 4, 8, 16, or 32. Under these conditions, choice was defined as the comparison that first accumulated the required number of responses. In general, increasing the comparison-response requirement decreased accuracy and lowering the comparison requirement increased accuracy. The fixed-ratio observing requirements appeared to facilitate control by stimuli serving an instructional function.     

Effectiveness and persistence of precurrent mediating behavior in delayed matching to sample and oddity matching with children.

Two kinds of mediating behavior were compared with respect to their effectiveness in variable-delay matching-to-sample and oddity-matching tasks. Each of four 5-year-old children was trained to emit either differential or common mediating responses. The differential mediating response consisted of pressing a specific computer key corresponding to either of two possible sample stimuli (a red or a green square). The common mediating response consisted of pressing one of the two response keys regardless of the sample. The differential-response subjects did not show the typical, delay-related decrease in matching-to-sample performance that characterized the behavior of common-response subjects. An oddity-matching task was then introduced, and subjects were instructed to use the mediating keys however they preferred, including not at all. Differential-response subjects continued to respond on the originally trained mediating keys in response to sample presentation and later reversed their choice responding, thus accommodating the oddity-matching requirements. Common-response subjects continued to emit the previously trained mediating response and experienced limited success in oddity matching. Results were interpreted in terms of stimulus control, instructional control, and experimental history.     

Local proactive interference in delayed matching to sample: the role of reinforcement

Discriminability in delayed matching to sample was lower when the samples on consecutive trials differed compared with when samples on consecutive trials were the same. This local proactive interference occurred when correct choices on the previous trial were reinforced but not when correct choices on the previous trial were not reinforced. When the choice on the previous trial was incorrect, discriminability was higher on different consecutive trials than on same trials. These effects were amplified by varying the ratio of reinforcers for correct choices, as predicted by a model that attributes local proactive interference to an interaction between control by the sample on the current trial and the influence of reinforcers for correct choices on previous trials.     

Learning mechanisms in matching to sample.

A model system and an experiment on early learning and decision processes in matching-to-sample and oddity-from-sample tasks are presented. The model system is based, in part, on videotaped records of pigeons' looking responses before they chose 1 of 2 comparison stimuli. In order to see the wavelength stimuli recessed behind the pecking keys, the pigeons had to move in front of them. Although there were slight increases in the acceptance probability with switches between the stimuli before a choice response, the overall decision strategy was close to a Markov choice process in which choice proportions could be predicted by the product of each rejection probability and the final acceptance probability. Learning involved learning to discriminate rather than learning to adopt a stricter criterion for an acceptable sample match.     

Sample-stimulus discriminability and sensitivity to reinforcement in delayed matching to sample

Five pigeons were trained in a delayed matching-to-sample task with red and green stimuli. The retention interval between sample-stimulus presentation and the availability of the choice stimuli was varied between 0.01 s and 12 s within each session. The probability of food produced by correct-red and correct-green responses was varied across conditions. Sample-stimulus discriminability and response bias were measured at four different retention intervals. The results of these analyses showed an interaction between the discriminability of the sample stimuli and the control exerted by differential reinforcement. At longer retention intervals, sample discriminability decreased and sensitivity of choice behavior to changes in the red/green reinforcer ratio increased. An analogous relation has been reported in conditional discriminations in which the physical disparity of stimuli has been varied. This correspondence suggests that increasing the delay between presentation of one of two stimuli and an opportunity to respond discriminatively to it may be functionally similar to increasing the physical similarity of the two stimuli.     

Delayed reinforcement and delayed choice in symbolic matching to sample: Effects on stimulus discriminability

Six pigeons were trained to peck a red side key when the brighter of two white lights (S₁) had been presented on the center key, and to peck a green side key when the dimmer of two white lights (S₂) had been presented on the center key. Equal frequencies of reinforcers were provided for the two types of correct choice. Incorrect choices, red side-key pecks following S₂ presentations and green side-key pecks following S₁ presentations, resulted in blackout. With 0-s delay between choice and reinforcement, the delay between sample presentation and choice was varied from 0 to 20 s. Then, with 0-s delay between sample presentation and choice, the delay between choice and reinforcement was varied from 0 to 20 s. Both types of delay resulted in decreased discriminability (defined in terms of a signal-detection analysis) of the center-key stimuli, but delayed choice had more effect on discriminability than did delayed reinforcement. These data are consistent with the view that the two kinds of delay operate differently. The effect of a sample-choice delay may result from a degradation of the conditional discriminative stimuli during the delay; the effect of a choice-reinforcer delay may result from a decrement in control by differential reinforcement.     

Use of number by crows: investigation by matching and oddity learning

Hooded crows were trained in two-alternative simultaneous matching and oddity tasks with stimulus sets of three different categories: color (black and white), shape (Arabic Numerals 1 and 2, which were used as visual shapes only), and number of elements (arrays of one and two items). These three sets were used for training successively and repeatedly; the stimulus set was changed to the next one after the criterion (80% correct or better over 30 consecutive trials) was reached with the previous one. Training was continued until the criterion could be reached within the first 30 to 50 trials for each of the three training sets. During partial transfer tests, familiar stimuli (numerals and arrays in the range from 1 to 2) were paired with novel ones (numerals and arrays in the range from 3 to 4). At the final stage of testing only novel stimuli were presented (numerals and arrays in the range from 5 to 8). Four of 6 birds were able to transfer in these tests, and their performance was significantly above chance. Moreover, performance of the birds on the array stimuli did not differ from their performance on the color or shape stimuli. They were capable of recognizing the number of elements in arrays and comparing the stimuli by this attribute. It was concluded that crows were able to apply the matching (or oddity) concept to stimuli of numerical category.     

A theory of attending, remembering, and reinforcement in delayed matching to sample

A theory of attending and reinforcement in conditional discriminations is extended to working memory in delayed matching to sample by adding terms for disruption of attending during the retention interval. Like its predecessor, the theory assumes that reinforcers and disruptors affect the independent probabilities of attending to sample and comparison stimuli in the same way as the rate of overt free-operant responding as suggested by Nevin and Grace, and that attending is translated into discriminative performance by the model of Davison and Nevin. The theory accounts for the effects of sample-stimulus discriminability and retention-interval disruption on the levels and slopes of forgetting functions, and for the diverse relations between accuracy and sensitivity to reinforcement reported in the literature. It also accounts for the effects of reinforcer probability in multiple schedules on the levels and resistance to change of forgetting functions; for the effects of reinforcer probabilities signaled within delayed-matching trials; and for the effects of reinforcer delay, sample duration, and intertrial-interval duration. The model accounts for some data that have been problematic for previous theories, and makes testably different predictions of the effects of reinforcer probabilities and disruptors on forgetting functions in multiple schedules and signaled trials.     

Transfer of relational rules in matching and oddity learning by pigeons and corvids

Three experiments compared the performance of pigeons and corvids when they were given the opportunity to transfer the relational rule underlying matching or oddity discriminations to new sets of stimuli. In the first, pigeons and jackdaws were initially trained either on a matching or on a non-relational conditional discrimination and then transferred to a new matching discrimination. In the second, pigeons and jays were trained on a series of three matching (or oddity) discriminations with three different pairs of colours and finally tested, either with the same or the reversed rule, on matching or oddity to line orientations. In the third, pigeons and rooks were trained to perform one response when two coloured panels were the same and a different response when the two colours were different and then transferred, either with the same or the reversed rule, to a new set of colour stimuli. All three experiments produced the same result: no evidence of transfer of the relational rule by pigeons, but substantial and significant transfer by corvids.     

Identity matching and oddity learning in patients with moderate to severe Alzheimer-type dementia

Discrimination learning was investigated in patients with moderate to severe Alzheimer-type dementia (AD), comparing their performance with age-matched controls. Four AD patients were trained to criterion on identity matching and then shifted to the same task with novel stimuli. The AD patients showed no savings in learning to match novel stimuli, whereas a comparative group of four control subjects rapidly learned the novel matching discrimination, maintaining criterion performance on the transfer test. A second group of four patients was initially trained on oddity, taking a similar number of trials to reach criterion as the matching group. When these patients were subsequently shifted to the matching task with novel stimuli, they performed substantially worse than the first group of patients who had learned the matching task in the first stage. The lack of positive transfer in the shift between matching to matching suggests that the AD patients solved the identity-matching task on the basis of stimulus-response associations rather than a rule. The presence of negative transfer after shifting from oddity to matching may be explained by a pre-disposition to respond to a novel stimulus that is carried over into the matching task, but this warrants further investigation, as indicated in the discussion.     

Noncontingent reinforcement, alternative reinforcement, and the matching law: a laboratory demonstration

Basic researchers, but not most applied researchers, have assumed that the behavior-decelerating effects of noncontingent reinforcement result at least partly from adventitious reinforcement of competing behaviors. The literature contains only sketchy evidence of these effects because few noncontingent reinforcement studies measure alternative behaviors. A laboratory model is presented in which concurrent schedules of contingent reinforcement were used to establish a "target" and an "alternative" behavior. Imposing noncontingent reinforcement decreased target behavior rates and increased alternative behavior rates, outcomes that were well described by the standard quantitative account of alternative reinforcement, the generalized matching law. These results suggest that adventitious reinforcement of alternative behaviors can occur during noncontingent reinforcement interventions, although the range of conditions under which this occurs remains to be determined in future studies. As an adjunct to applied studies, laboratory models permit easy measurement of alternative behaviors and parametric manipulations needed to answer many research questions.     

Children's identity matching and oddity: assessing control by specific and general sample-comparison relations.

After children in Experiments 1 and 2 learned identity matching or oddity, control by sample-comparison relations was assessed. Tests for generalized control displayed novel samples and two comparison stimuli, one identical to the sample. Specific relations were tested with identical or nonidentical sample-comparison stimuli from one set of stimuli and substitute comparisons from either the other training set or from a novel set. When tests displayed identical stimuli, patterns of comparison selection suggested control by generalized identity and oddity. However, selection patterns varied when stimuli were nonidentical and familiar or novel substitute comparisons were used. Therefore, control by specific relations is not a precondition for generalized identity and oddity. One set of training stimuli was used in Experiment 3, and generalized performances occurred again. Moreover, control by specific relations was shown by the oddity subjects and 2 of 6 identity subjects. Generalized and specific control may therefore exist simultaneously. In Experiment 4, selections were irregular on tests displaying substitute comparisons and samples and familiar comparison stimuli; this finding supported the relational account of specific sample-comparison control found in Experiment 3.     

Minimal mimicry: Mere effector matching induces preference

Both mimicking and being mimicked induces preference for a target. The present experiments investigate the minimal sufficient conditions for this mimicry-preference link to occur. We argue that mere effector matching between one’s own and the other person’s movement is sufficient to induce preference, independent of which movement is actually performed. In Experiments 1 and 2, participants moved either their arms or legs, and watched avatars that moved either their arms or legs, respectively, without any instructions to mimic. The executed movements themselves and their pace were completely different between participants (fast circular movements) and targets (slow linear movements). Participants preferred avatars that moved the same body part as they did over avatars that moved a different body part. In Experiment 3, using human targets and differently paced movements, movement similarity was manipulated in addition to effector overlap (moving forward–backward or sideways with arms or legs, respectively). Only effector matching, but not movement matching, influenced preference ratings. These findings suggest that mere effector overlap is sufficient to trigger preference by mimicry.     

Minimal mimicry: Mere effector matching induces preference

Both mimicking and being mimicked induces preference for a target. The present experiments investigate the minimal sufficient conditions for this mimicry-preference link to occur. We argue that mere effector matching between one’s own and the other person’s movement is sufficient to induce preference, independent of which movement is actually performed. In Experiments 1 and 2, participants moved either their arms or legs, and watched avatars that moved either their arms or legs, respectively, without any instructions to mimic. The executed movements themselves and their pace were completely different between participants (fast circular movements) and targets (slow linear movements). Participants preferred avatars that moved the same body part as they did over avatars that moved a different body part. In Experiment 3, using human targets and differently paced movements, movement similarity was manipulated in addition to effector overlap (moving forward–backward or sideways with arms or legs, respectively). Only effector matching, but not movement matching, influenced preference ratings. These findings suggest that mere effector overlap is sufficient to trigger preference by mimicry.     

The paradox of preference for unreliable reinforcement: The role of context and conditioned reinforcement

We discuss Belke and Spetch's (1994) work on choice between reliable and unreliable reinforcement. The studies by Belke and Spetch extend a line of basic research demonstrating that under certain experimental conditions in a concurrent chains procedure, pigeons prefer an alternative that produces unreliable reinforcement. The authors describe the variables that influence preference for unreliable reinforcement, including the signaling and the duration of the reinforcement schedules, the context in which the signaling stimuli occur, and the effects of conditioned reinforcement. Hypothetical applied examples that address these variables are provided, and their influence on preference for unreliable reinforcement in humans is discussed. We conclude by suggesting a line of applied research to examine the relationship between these variables and a preference for unreliable reinforcement.     

Learning of an oddity rule by pigeons in a four-choice touch-screen procedure

Six pigeons were trained to peck at a target (odd stimulus) that was presented on a touch-screen together with three identical distractors (non-odd stimuli). The target could be either a square or a circle that was either blue or green, and the distractors in each trial were always of the opposite form and color to the target. Thus, the birds could solve the task by attending to color, form, or both. Transfer tests showed that performance was not disrupted by novel forms, stimulus sizes, distractor numbers, and display configurations, but broke down with novel stimulus types (textured stimuli, clip art images, and photographs). Transfer to novel colors was, for the most part, restricted to trials in which only one component—target or distractors, but not both—had a novel color. This suggested that the pigeons used a couple of if–then rules rather than an oddity concept to solve the task, and that color differences between target and distractors were the only cue upon which responding was based. A control experiment with the order of color and form tests being reversed excluded the possibility of the prevalence of color being an artifact of task order and reinforcement contingencies.