Effects of response disparity on stimulus and reinforcer control in human detection tasks

In two detection experiments, university students reported whether the second of two sequentially presented tones was longer or shorter than the first by responding to stimuli presented on a touch screen. Stimulus disparity and response disparity were manipulated to compare their effects on measures of discrimination and response bias when the reinforcement ratio for correct responses was asymmetric. Choice stimuli consisted of squares filled with different pixel densities. Response disparity was manipulated by varying the difference in density between the two choice stimuli. In both experiments, decreasing stimulus disparity reduced discrimination but had no consistent effect on bias. Decreasing response disparity also reduced discrimination in both experiments, and often reduced estimates of bias. The effects of response disparity on bias were most clear in Experiment 2, in which a greater overall level of response disparity was arranged. The data show that, like corresponding research with pigeons, detection performance of human subjects can be conceptualized as discriminated operants.     

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.     

Conditioned reinforcement by conditional discriminative stimuli.

A concurrent-chains schedule was used to examine how a delay to conditional discriminative stimuli affects conditioned reinforcement strength. Pigeons' key-peck responses in the initial link produced either of two terminal links according to independent variable-interval 30-s schedules. Each terminal link involved an identical successive conditional discrimination and was segmented into three links: a delay interval (green), a color conditional discriminative stimulus (blue or red), and a line conditional discriminative stimulus (vertical or horizontal lines). Food delivery occurred 45 s after entering the terminal link with a probability of .5, but its conditional probability (1.0 or 0) depended on the combination of the color and the line stimuli. One of the color stimuli occurred independently of further responding, 5 s after entry into the right terminal link, but it occurred 35 s after entry into the left terminal link. One of the line stimuli occurred independently of responding 40 s after entry into either terminal link, synchronized with the offset of the color stimulus. The initial-link relative response rate for the right was consistently higher in comparison with a control condition in which the color stimuli occurred 20 s after entry into either terminal link. The preference for the short delay to the color conditional discriminative stimuli suggests the possibility of conditioned reinforcement by information about the relation between the line conditional discriminative stimuli and the outcomes.     

Stimulus-specific contrast effects during operant discrimination learning

In two experiments, pigeons' responding was equally reinforced in the presence of four line-orientation stimuli. Responding was then reinforced when only two of the four orientation stimuli were present; the remaining two orientations appeared during extinction. Response rates were often highest in the stimulus adjacent to the orientations presented during extinction and often lowest in that orientation adjacent to the orientations presented with reinforcement. These effects were stronger and more persistent when the stimuli were separated by a smaller angle, rendering the discrimination more difficult. These and other data suggest that discrimination training may not be accurately explained in terms of the simple effects of reinforcement and nonreinforcement associated with isolated stimuli, nor by accounts that depend upon stimulus generalization. Recent accounts of contrast that depend upon “emotionality” produced by nonreinforced responding or upon reinforcement-elicited responses are also difficult to apply to these data.     

Action at a temporal distance: Component transition as the relational basis for successive discrimination

In a successive discrimination, red and green hues signaled component variable-interval schedules. The exponent of the power function relating ratios of responses in the red and green components to ratios of reinforcers provided a reinforcement-free measure of discrimination or stimulus control. Responses were recorded in successive 10-s subintervals of the 50-s components. The power-function exponent decreased systematically with increasing time since component transition in most conditions of five experiments. This reduction was not influenced by the absolute rate of reinforcement, consistent with the interpretation of the exponent as a measure of stimulus control. A reduction in the overall level of stimulus control by increasing the duration of response-produced keylight offset did not influence the decrease in discrimination with increasing time since component transition. The results support the conclusion that discriminative responding in successive discriminations is governed by several sources of stimulus control including delayed control by component transition.     

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.     

The effects of number of sample stimuli and number of choices in a detection task on measures of discriminability

Six pigeons were trained on a conditional discrimination task involving the discrimination of various intensities of yellow light. The research asked whether stimulus—response discriminability measures between any pair of stimuli would remain constant when a third or fourth sample and reinforced response were added. The numbers of different sample stimuli presented and different responses reinforced were two (Part 1), three (Parts 2 and 4), and four (Part 3). Across conditions within parts, the ratios of reinforcers obtainable for correct responses were varied over at least five levels. In Part 5, the numbers of sample stimuli and reinforced responses were varied among two, three, and four, and the reinforcer ratio between consecutive remaining samples was constant at 2:1. It was found that once a particular response had been reinforced, subjects continued to emit that response when the conditional stimulus for that response was no longer presented. Data analysis using a generalization-based detection model indicated that this model was able to describe the data effectively. Four findings were in accord with the theory. First, estimates of stimulus—response discriminability usually decreased as the arranged physical disparity between the sample stimuli decreased. Second, stimulus—response discriminability measures were independent of response—reinforcer discriminability measures, preserving parameter invariance between these measures. Third, stimulus—response discriminability measures for constant pairs of conditional stimuli did not change systematically as conditional stimulus—response alternatives were added. Fourth, log stimulus—response discriminability values between physically adjacent conditional stimuli summed to values that were not significantly different from estimates of the discriminability values for conditional stimuli that were spaced further apart.     

A relational differential outcomes effect: pigeons can classify outcomes as “good” and “better”

In a conditional discrimination each of two sample stimuli indicates which of two comparison stimuli is correct. When correct choice following each conditional stimulus is followed by a different outcome (one kind of food following one, a different kind of food following the other) it often facilitates acquisition and improves memory. In transfer designs, in which two different conditional discriminations are followed by the same two differential outcomes, outcome expectation can be shown to be sufficient for comparison choice. That is, the samples from one conditional discrimination are matched to comparisons from the other conditional discrimination based on the common outcomes alone. In the present study we asked if for pigeons the relative value of the differential outcomes (higher versus lower value) can serve as the basis for comparison choice, independent of other characteristics of the outcomes and of differential sample responding. That is, would different outcomes that could be described as “good” and “better” form two stimulus classes. For one conditional discrimination, the differential outcomes involved differential probability of reinforcement for choice of the correct comparison stimulus (0.80 vs. 0.20 for correct choice of the two comparisons, respectively). For the other conditional discrimination, the differential outcomes involved differential responding to the two comparison stimuli (5 pecks vs. 20 pecks to the correct comparisons, respectively). On test trials, when conditional stimuli from the two conditional discriminations were interchanged and the relative value of the differential outcomes could serve as the only basis for comparison choice, we found positive transfer. The results indicate that relational attributes of outcomes can serve as effective cues for comparison choice.     

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.     

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.     

Effects of ratio reinforcement schedules on discrimination performance by Japanese monkeys

In Experiment 1, Japanese monkeys were trained on three conditional position-discrimination problems with colors as the conditional cues. Within each session, each problem was presented for two blocks of ten reinforcements; correct responses were reinforced under continuous-reinforcement, fixed-ratio 5, and variable-ratio 5 schedules, each assigned to one of the three problems. The assignment of schedules to problems was rotated a total of three times (15 sessions per assignment) after 30 sessions of acquisition training. Accuracy of discrimination increased to a moderate level with fewer trials under CRF than under ratio schedules. In contrast, the two ratio schedules, fixed and variable, were more effective in maintaining accurate discrimination than was CRF. With further training, as asymptotes were reached, accuracy was less affected by the schedule differences. These results demonstrated an interaction between the effects of reinforcement schedules and the level of acquisition. In Experiment 2, ratio sizes were gradually increased to 30. Discrimination accuracy was maintained until the ratio reached 20; ratio 30 strained the performance. Under FR conditions, accuracy increased as correct choice responses cumulated after reinforcement.     

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.     

Functional classes and equivalence relations

Three adult subjects were taught a set of two-choice simultaneous discriminations, with three positive and three negative stimuli; all possible combinations of positive and negative stimuli yielded nine different pairs. The discriminations were repeatedly reversed and rereversed, the former positive stimuli becoming negative and the former negative stimuli becoming positive. With all subjects, a reversal of the contingencies for one pair of stimuli became sufficient to change their responses to all of the other pairs. The reversals had produced functional stimulus classes. Then, all subjects showed conditional discriminations emerging between members of a functional class; given a sample from one class and comparisons from both classes, they selected the comparison that was in the same class as the sample. Next, 2 of the subjects showed that the within-class conditional relations possessed the symmetric and transitive properties of equivalence relations; after having been taught to relate new stimuli to existing class members, the subjects then matched other class members to the new stimuli. Subsequent tests of two-choice discriminations showed that the conditional discriminations had transferred functional class membership to the new stimuli. The 3rd subject, who did not show equivalence relations among functional class members, was also found to have lost the within-class conditional relations after the equivalence tests.     

Delayed and current stimulus control in successive discriminations

In a successive discrimination in which successively alternating red and green hues signaled component variable-interval schedules, sensitivity of the ratio of responses in the two components to variation in the component reinforcer ratio decreased systematically during the course of the component. This decrease in stimulus control or discrimination over the course of the component was shown to be the result of delayed control of responding during the component by the stimulus transition between components. When the red–green stimulus transition was altered by interpolating a white stimulus at the end of each 60-s component, discrimination at the beginning of the component (measured by the power-function exponent for sensitivity to reinforcement) was reduced. Conditions with the white stimulus inserted in other quarters of the component indicated that the current discriminative stimulus exerts control over responding throughout the component, whereas during about the first half of the component, response differentials are influenced by the transition between discriminative stimuli.     

Observing responses maintained by conditional discriminative stimuli.

In a conditional discrimination procedure, pigeons' observing responses were analyzed to examine whether two color stimuli (blue or red), conditionally related to whether each of two line stimuli (vertical or horizontal) accompanied reinforcement or nonreinforcement, functioned as conditioned reinforcers. If a variable-interval (VI) 10-s requirement was fulfilled, an observing response produced onset of a color stimulus. A little later, a line stimulus was presented independently of responding, added to the color stimulus to form a compound stimulus. If 55 s elapsed with a response not having occurred either through 55 s or after the variable-interval 10-s had timed out, one of the color-line compound stimuli was presented independently of responding. To control for sensory reinforcement effects and for earlier entrance to the later link, a simple discrimination procedure also was conducted in which reinforcement was not correlated with the color stimuli but with the line stimuli only. As in the conditional discrimination, the observing response also could produce earlier presentation of blue or red. The observing response occurred more frequently during the conditional discrimination than during the simple discrimination. The results were related to different theoretical accounts of conditioned reinforcement, particularly the information hypothesis.     

Stimulus and reinforcer relativity in multiple schedules: Local and dimensional effects on sensitivity to reinforcement

Pigeons' responses in two successive components of multiple schedules were reinforced according to variable-interval schedules of reinforcement that varied over five different conditions. Within each session of all conditions, line orientations of 0°, 30°, or 45° in Component 1 alternated with orientations of 45°, 60°, or 90° in Component 2. Response rates were recorded in three successive subintervals of each component. Ratios were taken between the response rate in each Component 1 line orientation and the response rate in each Component 2 orientation. These ratios were found to be power functions of the corresponding ratios of obtained reinforcement rates. Sensitivity of response ratios to changes in reinforcer ratios, given by the value of the exponent of the power function, increased systematically with increasing disparity between the dimensional values of orientation stimuli. In addition, sensitivity decreased systematically over successive subintervals of components, that is, with increasing time since component alternation. Dimensional and local (subinterval) effects interacted in that sensitivity increased with stimulus disparity to a far greater extent in the first subinterval than later in components. The data could be described by a combination of rectangular hyperbolae which attributed the interaction between local and dimensional effects to limits set by local effects on the extent that stimulus differences could affect sensitivity.     

Repeated acquisition of conditional discriminations

A new technique was developed to study the repeated acquisition of conditional discriminations. Using a discrete trial procedure, pigeons were required to learn during each session a different two-member chain of conditional discriminations. Key color and geometric forms were used as stimuli. After the pigeons had reached a steady state of relearning (40 to 60 sessions), the technique was used to investigate variables that have previously been shown to affect the repeated acquisition of response sequences. Various (0 to 90 seconds) durations of timeout for errors were investigated in Experiment I. The stimulus change associated with a timeout, rather than its duration, was found to be the critical variable in acquisition of the discrimination. Extended training on a single chain was found to reduce total errors across sessions in Experiment II. Extended training (three sessions) did not, however, change the pattern of within-session error reduction. In some cases, extended training facilitated acquisition of a partially reversed discrimination. In Experiment III, color rather than chain position was found to control behavior, for three of the four birds, as the second stimulus dimension in the conditional situation. The results of these experiments replicate and extend previous findings concerning some of the variables that affect the repeated acquisition of response sequences.     

A discrimination analysis of training-structure effects on stimulus equivalence outcomes.

Experiments designed to establish stimulus equivalence classes frequently produce differential outcomes that may be attributable to training structure, defined as the order and arrangement of baseline conditional discrimination training trials. Several possible explanations for these differences have been suggested. Here we develop a hypothesis based on an analysis of the simple simultaneous and successive discriminations embedded in conditional discrimination training and testing within each of the training structures that are typically used in stimulus equivalence experiments. Our analysis shows that only the comparison-as-node (many-to-one) structure presents all the simple discriminations in training that are subsequently required for consistently positive outcomes on all tests for the properties of equivalence. The sample-as-node (one-to-many) training structure does not present all the simple discriminations required for positive outcomes on either the symmetry or combined transitivity and symmetry (equivalence) tests. The linear-series training structure presents all the simple discriminations required for consistently positive outcomes on tests for symmetry, but not for symmetry and transitivity combined (equivalence) or transitivity alone. Further, the difference in the number of simple discriminations presented in comparison-as-node training versus the other training structures is larger when the intended class size is greater than three or the number of classes is larger than two. We discuss the relevance of this analysis to interpretations of stimulus equivalence research, as well as some methodological and theoretical implications.     

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.