Irrelevance of sample stimuli and directed forgetting in pigeons

A successive matching procedure was used to investigate which aspect of the test-omission procedure is responsible for establishing a postsample stimulus as a cue to forget in pigeons. It was found that a postsample stimulus that reliably followed a sample that was irrelevant to performance functioned as a cue to forget. This result was obtained regardless of whether termination of that postsample stimulus was followed by reinforcement or by the presentation of sample-independent discriminative stimuli. It was also found that a postsample stimulus that functioned as a cue to forget at the beginning of training lost that function when it was repeatedly presented on trials in which the sample was relevant to performance. These findings reveal that (a) neither a reduction in reinforcement rate nor the omission of the opportunity for discriminated responding is necessary to establish an effective cue to forget and (b) irrelevance of the sample to performance is a sufficient condition to establish a cue to forget. These results suggest that a postsample stimulus that is presented on trials in which remembering the sample is not reinforced differentially will come to set the occasion for not remembering the sample.     

Stimulus control of information processing in pigeon short-term memory

Six pigeons were trained initially on a delayed successive matching-to-sample task using red and green fields as sample and test stimuli. Following acquisition, each sample was followed either by a vertical line (“remember” cue), which indicated that sample memory would be tested, or by a horizontal line (“forget” cue), which indicated that sample memory would not be tested. During the experiments, sample memory on forget trials was tested occasionally. A series of five experiments revealed: (a) better retention on remember trials than on forget trials, (b) increased effectiveness of a forget cue when it followed closely sample offset, (c) more rapid forgetting over a retention interval ranging from 3 to 6 sec on forget trials than on remember trials, (d) a “cancellation” effect in which a remember cue which followed immediately the offset of a forget cue attenuated markedly the effectiveness of the forget cue, and (e) an “insulation” effect in which the effectiveness of a forget cue was reduced considerably when presented after a remember cue. It was concluded that pigeons actively process or rehearse the sample memory during the retention interval.     

Most directed forgetting in pigeons can be attributed to the absence of reinforcement on forget trials during training or to other procedural artifacts.

In research on directed forgetting in pigeons using delayed matching procedures, remember cues, presented in the delay interval between sample and comparisons, have been followed by comparisons (i.e., a memory test), whereas forget cues have been followed by one of a number of different sample-independent events. The source of directed forgetting in delayed matching to sample in pigeons was examined in a 2 x 2 design by independently manipulating whether or not forget-cue trials in training ended with reinforcement and whether or not forget-cue trials in training included a simultaneous discrimination (involving stimuli other than those used in the matching task). Results were consistent with the hypothesis that reinforced responding following forget cues is sufficient to eliminate performance deficits on forget-cue probe trials. Only when reinforcement was omitted on forget-cue trials in training (whether a discrimination was required or not) was there a decrement in accuracy on forget-cue probe trials. When reinforcement is present, however, the pattern of responding established during and following a forget cue in training may also play a role in the directed forgetting effect. These findings support the view that much of the evidence for directed forgetting using matching procedures may result from motivational and behavioral artifacts rather than the loss of memory.     

Delayed temporal discrimination in pigeons: A comparison of two procedures

A within-subjects comparison was made of pigeons' performance on two temporal discrimination procedures that were signaled by differently colored keylight samples. During stimulus trials, a peck on the key displaying a slanted line was reinforced following short keylight samples, and a peck on the key displaying a horizontal line was reinforced following long keylight samples, regardless of the location of the stimuli on those two choice keys. During position trials, a peck on the left key was reinforced following short keylight samples and a peck on the right key was reinforced following long keylight samples, regardless of which line stimulus appeared on the correct key. Thus, on stimulus trials, the correct choice key could not be discriminated prior to the presentation of the test stimuli, whereas on position trials, the correct choice key could be discriminated during the presentation of the sample stimulus. During Phase 1, with a 0-s delay between sample and choice stimuli, discrimination learning was faster on position trials than on stimulus trials for all 4 birds. During Phase 2, 0-, 0.5-, and 1.0-s delays produced differential loss of stimulus control under the two tasks for 2 birds. Response patterns during the delay intervals provided some evidence for differential mediation of the two delayed discriminations. These between-task differences suggest that the same processes may not mediate performance in each.     

Directed forgetting of elements in compound samples.

Pigeons were trained in a delayed matching-to-sample procedure in which the sample stimuli consisted of a compound of color (red or green) and spatial location (left or right). A postsample cue (houselight on or off) signaled whether color matching or location matching would be required following the delay. In Experiment 1, the reduction in performance on probe trials (in which the houselight condition was reversed relative to that on regular trials) was greater for location matching than for color matching. The birds showed overt mediational behavior during the delays on location-matching trials. On color-matching trials, the birds exhibited behavior during delays that might have interfered with that mediational behavior. In Experiment 2, the houselight condition was changed shortly before presentation of the comparison stimuli on probe trials. Accuracy of location matching was reduced when the cue initially signaled color matching and was then changed to signal location matching, whereas matching accuracy was not reduced by a change in the opposite direction. Accuracy of color matching was reduced by a change in illumination level from dark to light, regardless of type of the relevant dimension signaled by houselight illumination. Discussion of these findings focuses on the variables critical to establishment of an effective cue to forget.     

On the effects of signaling reinforcer probability and magnitude in delayed matching to sample

Two experiments examined whether postsample signals of reinforcer probability or magnitude affected the accuracy of delayed matching to sample in pigeons. On each trial, red or green choice responses that matched red or green stimuli seen shortly before a variable retention interval were reinforced with wheat access. In Experiment 1, the reinforcer probability was either 0.2 or 1.0 for both red and green responses. Reinforcer probability was signaled by line or cross symbols that appeared after the sample had been presented. In Experiment 2, all correct responses were reinforced, and the signaled reinforcer durations were 1.0 s and 4.5 s. Matching was more accurate when larger or more probable reinforcers were signaled, independently of retention interval duration. Because signals were presented postsample, the effects were not the result of differential attention to the sample.     

Stimulus control of delayed matching in pigeons: Directed forgetting

Pigeons were trained in delayed matching-to-sample with two postsample stimuli. A postsample R-cue signaled that a matching choice phase would follow. A postsample F-cue signaled that a matching choice phase would not follow. Previous research found reduced matching accuracy on F-cued probe trials when comparison stimuli were presented in the choice phase. The present four experiments systematically varied the events following an F-cue to determine the conditions under which the F-cue reduces delayed-matching accuracy. When F-cues and R-cues controlled different behavior, matching on probe trials was poor. When both cues controlled the same behavior, matching on probe trials was good. This result is best explained by the theory that comparison stimuli retrieve the sample representation, but only in the behavioral context established by the R-cue. The present research supports the view that response-produced stimuli serve a contextual role in animal short-term memory.     

Successive incrementing non-matching-to-samples in rats: An automated version of the odor span task

The odor span task is a procedure frequently used to study remembering of multiple stimuli in rodents. A large arena is used and odor stimuli are presented using scented cups. Selection of each odor is reinforced when first presented, but not on subsequent presentations; correct selections depend on remembering which stimuli were previously presented. The use of an arena setting with manual stimulus presentation makes the odor span task labor-intensive and limits experimental control; thus, an automated version of the task would be of value. The present study used an operant chamber equipped with an olfactometer and trained rats using successive conditional discrimination procedures under an incrementing non-matching-to-samples contingency. High rates of responding developed to odor stimuli when they were session-novel with low rates of responding to subsequent presentations of that odor. Additional experiments assessed variations of the procedure to determine the role of the frequency of odor presentation and the retention interval separating sample and comparison. Discrimination was impaired with long retention intervals suggesting the importance of this variable. These findings confirmed that rats differentiate between stimuli that are session-novel and those previously encountered and support the use of an automated procedure as an alternative to the odor span task.     

Dual-Element Effects in Pigeons’ Matching-to-Sample with Temporal and Visual Stimuli

The present study examined whether the dual-element effect occurs when temporal and visual stimuli appear simultaneously in a zero-delayed, symbolic matching-to-sample task. Two groups of pigeons were first exposed to either a red or green sample stimulus, for either 30 s or 5 s. The sample was followed by the presentation of yellow and blue comparisons. For pigeons in one group, the duration of the sample was the relevant cue. Responses to the yellow comparison were reinforced if the sample was 30 s, and responses to the blue comparison were reinforced if the sample was 5 s. For the other group, sample duration was irrelevant. Responses to the yellow comparison were reinforced if the sample had been green and responses to the blue comparison were reinforced if the sample had been red. Both groups then learned a second matching task in which the sample and comparison stimuli were vertical and horizontal lines. Finally, matching performance was examined when the lines appeared together with the temporal or color elements. The results showed that the line matching task was acquired more slowly for pigeons that were first trained to attend to duration. More importantly, matching was reduced when the temporal and line elements appeared simultaneously, and the effects were similar to those obtained when visual elements are combined.

     

Effects of associatively significant posttrial stimuli on learning and memory

Pigeons were trained on a delayed conditional discrimination in which the choice between two simultaneously presented stimuli depended on how the trial started. Choice of one of the stimuli was reinforced if the trial had been initiated by presentation of a food sample and choice of the other was reinforced if no sample had been presented. Subsequently, test trials were administered on which an associatively significant stimulus was presented during the retention interval. This manipulation was intended to modulate the short-term retention of information about the food sample. It was found that performance on food sample test trials was enhanced by presentation of an excitor for food, disrupted by presentation of an inhibitor for food and unaffected by presentation of an associatively neutral stimulus. The impact of these posttrial stimuli was also assessed on the ability of the food sample to serve as a reinforcer. This was done by recording the development of responding to a keylight that signalled the food sample on these test trials. Compared to the associatively neutral stimulus, both the excitor and the inhibitor interfered with the development of keypecking. These results are discussed with regard to the issue of how posttrial events modulate associative learning.     

Reducing stimulus overselectivity through an increased observing-response requirement

An adult with autism and a mild intellectual disability participated in a 0-s delayed matching-to-sample task. In each trial, two sample stimuli were presented together until the participant completed an observing-response requirement consisting of 1 or 10 mouse clicks in the baseline and experimental phases, respectively. One of the two sample stimuli then appeared randomly as a comparison stimulus (S+), along with two other comparison stimuli (S-). Higher levels of correct responding occurred under the larger observing-response requirement, and the proportion of errors related to one of the two sample stimuli decreased. Thus, stimulus overselectivity was reduced without requiring differential observing responses.     

Response specificity in animal timing.

The stimuli that control responding in the peak procedure were investigated by training rats, in separate sessions, to make two different responses for food reinforcement. During one type of session, lever pressing was normally reinforced 32 s after the onset of a light. During the other type of session, chain pulling was normally reinforced either 8 s after the onset of one auditory cue or 128 s after the onset of a different auditory cue. For both types of sessions, only the appropriate manipulandum was available, and 20% of the trials lasted 240 s and involved no response-contingent consequences. Rats were then tested with the auditory cues in the presence of the lever and the light in the presence of the chain. If the time of reinforcement associated with each stimulus was learned, response rates should peak at these times during transfer testing. However, if a specific response pattern was learned for each stimulus, little transfer should occur. The results did not clearly support either prediction, leading to the conclusion that both a representation of the time of reinforcement and the rat's own behavior may control responding in this situation.     

A procedure for generating differential "sample" responding without different exteroceptive stimuli

Sidman (1994, 2000) suggested that responses as well as stimuli can join equivalence classes, a hypothesis difficult to test because differential responding typically requires different stimuli. The present experiments describe a procedure with pigeons that avoids this potential confounding effect. In Experiment 1, spacing two responses 3 s apart (a differential-reinforcement-of-low-rate [DRL] schedule) to a white stimulus on some trials produced food or the comparison stimuli in a matching task, whereas pecking 10 or more times with no temporal restrictions (a fixed-ratio [FR] schedule) produced the same effect on other trials. Completing the alternative (unscheduled) requirement terminated the white stimulus and repeated the trial. Following such errors, pigeons learned to switch to the alternative response pattern on the repeat trials. In addition, the correct response pattern functioned as a conditional cue for comparison choice. In Experiment 2, mixed DRL-FR training was preceded by two-sample/two-alternative matching-to-sample with DRL and FR sample-response requirements. In a subsequent transfer test in which the correct response pattern to white served as the sample, pigeons preferentially chose the comparison previously reinforced following that pattern in the baseline task. This "unsignaled response" procedure may be useful for assessing whether differential responses can be members of acquired equivalence classes.     

A method for examining short-term retention of haptic cues in monkeys

Tasks used to examine short-term memory (STM) in animals have almost exclusively required retention of visual cues. To determine if haptic information can be retained, three rhesus monkeys were trained to perform, using only haptic cues, a simultaneous (SMS) and a delayed matching-to-sample (DMS) task. On each trial, the monkeys felt and responded to a sample stimulus on a centrally located manipulandum. They were then presented two comparison stimuli located on both sides of the central manipulandum. A response matching the comparison stimulus with the sample stimulus was reinforced. In SMS a mean of 2,725 trials was required to reach a criterion of 90% correct. As in DMS performance for visual cues, in haptic DMS the monkeys were capable of above-chance responding at retention intervals of greater than 1 min. This haptic DMS task should be useful for testing STM models, for examining the physiological basis of STM, and for examining drug effects.     

Generalization and response mediation of a conditional discrimination

Fifteen pigeons were given conditional discrimination training in which a colored sample stimulus determined which of two line comparison stimuli (vertical and horizontal) was correct. As part of the conditional discrimination procedure, birds were required to make an "observing response" to the sample stimulus presented on a wide key. The location on this key of the required observing response for the two sample stimuli differed by 0, 3, or 6 in. (0, 7.6, or 15.2 cm) for three groups of birds. Accuracy of conditional discrimination performance was directly related to the amount of separation. In subsequent generalization tests with novel sample stimuli, both observing-response location and comparison responding changed within the same region of the wavelength continuum from that appropriate for one of the training samples to that appropriate for the other. A maintained generalization test (continued reinforcement for training stimuli) revealed this relation more strongly. A test in which observing-response location was the only sample stimulus of a conditional discrimination revealed stimulus control by this observing response, supporting a response mediation interpretation of the data.     

Microcomputer-based programmed instruction in identity matching to sample for persons with severe disabilities

Three individuals with mental retardation, who had failed to learn identity matching to sample with standard fading and prompting procedures, were given microcomputer-based programmed instruction. The methods were based on an analysis of two features of typical identity matching procedures: (a) within each trial, the current sample stimulus must control comparison selection, and (b) across trials, specific comparison stimuli must function both as S+ and as S–, depending upon the sample presented (conditional discrimination). During the first phase of training, one-trial acquisition of discriminative stimulus control was established in a nonconditional discrimination context where the S+ or S– functions of specific stimuli did not change from trial to trial. After one-trial learning was established, conditional discrimination was programmed by gradually introducing reversals of S+/S– stimulus functions. All three participants learned to perform conditional identity matching. Avenues for further analysis of the prerequisites for conditional discrimination and continued development of programmed methods are discussed.     

Multiple attention systems in perceptual categorization

Five observers categorized inverted L-shaped stimuli according to the length of the horizontal line segment. A centrally located spatial cue preceded the stimulus on each trial. On 80% of the trials, the (relevant) horizontal line segment fell within the cued location, and on 20% of the trials the (irrelevant) vertical line segment fell within the cued location. The empirical results provide support for the hypothesis that perceptual attention can focus on the stimulus attribute inside the spatially cued location at the same time that decisional attention is focused on the (relevant) horizontal attribute--that is, the results suggest that perceptual and decisional attention can function independently during categorization. Decision bound models and extended generalized context models that assume separate perceptual and decisional attention systems were fitted to the data. Versions of the models that assume that the spatial cue affected perceptual attention were superior to versions that assume no effect on perceptual attention. These theoretical analyses support the functional independence hypothesis and suggest that formal theories of categorization should model the effects of perceptual and decisional attention separately.     

Intertrial sources of stimulus control and delayed matching-to-sample performance in humans

Two experiments compared delayed matching-to-sample (DMTS) accuracy under 2 procedures in adults with mental retardation. In the trial-unique procedure, every trial in a session contained different stimuli. Thus, comparison stimuli that were correct on one trial were never incorrect on other trials in that session (or vice versa). In the 2-sample DMTS procedure, the same 2 comparison stimuli were presented on each trial, and their function changed quasi-randomly across trials conditional upon the sample stimulus. Across 2 experiments, 7 of 8 subjects showed the highest overall accuracy under the trial-unique procedure, and no subject showed consistently higher accuracy under the 2-sample procedure. Negative, exponential decay functions fit to logit p values showed that this difference was due largely to the steeper delay-mediated decline in sample control for the 2-sample procedure. Stimulus-control analyses indicated that, under the 2-sample procedure, the selection of the comparison stimulus on Trial N was often controlled by the comparison stimulus selection on Trial N-1 rather than the Trial-N sample stimulus. This source of competing stimulus control is not present in trial-unique procedures. Experiment 2 manipulated intertrial interval duration. There was a small but consistent increase in accuracy as a function of intertrial interval duration under the 2-sample procedure, but not under the trial-unique procedure.     

Stimulus generalization and delay of reinforcement during one component of a multiple schedule

The key pecking of six pigeons was reinforced according to a variable-interval 1-min schedule during each of two successively presented stimuli. When the key was illuminated by a black line on a white background, reinforcement was delayed for 10 sec. When the key was illuminated by a plain white light, reinforcement was not delayed. All subjects responded at a lower rate during the presentation of the black line. A subsequent generalization test along the line-orientation dimension produced a U-shaped gradient, with the nadir located at or near the training stimulus, for each subject. These gradients suggested that the lower rate of response during the stimulus associated with delayed reinforcement may have been due to an inhibition of responding.     

Does attention have different effects on line orientation and line arrangement discrimination?

Visual search and texture segregation studies have led to the inference that stimuli differing in the orientation of their component line segments can be distinguished without focal attention, whereas stimuli that differ only in the arrangement of line segments cannot. In most of this research, the locus of attention has not been explicitly manipulated. In the first experiment presented here, attention was directed to a relevant peripheral target by a cue presented near the target location or at the fovea. Effects of attention on orientation discrimination were assessed in a two-alternative forced-choice task with targets that were either: (1) lines that slanted obliquely to the right or left, or were horizontal or vertical, or (2) Y-like targets that had a short arm leading obliquely right or left of a vertical line. In some groups, a four-alternative forced-choice test with lines at 0°, 45°, 90°, and 135° orientations was used. Discrimination of these targets (i.e. targets that differ in the orientation of component line segments) was only minimally facilitated as the time between the onset of the valid cue and the onset of the target (cue-target stimulus onset asynchrony, SOA) was increased from 0 or 17 msec to 267 msec. In contrast, discrimination of targets that did not differ in the orientation of component line segments but differed in line arrangement (T-like characters), was greatly facilitated by longer cue-target SOAs. In Experiment 2, a cue misdirected attention on 20% of the trials. A decrement occurred on incorrectly cued trials in comparison to correctly cued trials for both types of stimuli used (lines and Ts). The results from these experiments suggest that discrimination of line orientation benefits less from focal attention than does discrimination of line arrangement, but that both discriminations suffer when attention must be disengaged from an irrelevant spatial location.