Reflections on stimulus control

The topic of stimulus control is too broad and complex to be traceable here. It would probably take a two-semester course to cover just the highlights of that field's evolution. The more restricted topic of equivalence relations has itself become so broad that even an introductory summary requires more time than we have available. An examination of relations between equivalence and the more general topic of stimulus control, however, may reveal characteristics of both the larger and the more limited field that have not been generally discussed. Consideration of these features may in turn foster future developments within each area. I speak, of course, about aspects of stimulus control that my own experiences have made salient to me; others would surely emphasize different characteristics of the field. It is my hope that cooperative interactions among researchers and theorists who approach stimulus control from different directions will become more common than is currently typical.     

Pigeons' discrimination of paintings by Monet and Picasso

Pigeons successfully learned to discriminate color slides of paintings by Monet and Picasso. Following this training, they discriminated novel paintings by Monet and Picasso that had never been presented during the discrimination training. Furthermore, they showed generalization from Monet's to Cezanne's and Renoir's paintings or from Picasso's to Braque's and Matisse's paintings. These results suggest that pigeons' behavior can be controlled by complex visual stimuli in ways that suggest categorization. Upside-down images of Monet's paintings disrupted the discrimination, whereas inverted images of Picasso's did not. This result may indicate that the pigeons' behavior was controlled by objects depicted in impressionists' paintings but was not controlled by objects in cubists' paintings.     

WHAT DOES A PIGEON SEE IN A PICASSO?

The present paper is primarily a response to Watanabe, Sakamoto, and Wakita's 1995 paper “Pigeons' Discrimination of Paintings by Monet and Picasso.” Our main criticism is that the key term concept, and in particular the way in which a class of stimuli is specified, remains equivocal. We argue that it is only useful to study categorization if the organism in question can be expected to have access to the information that is used in defining the classes, and that evidence for categorization requires selective responses that cannot be attributed to similarity in features that are not essential to the classification.     

Discriminability of frequency of food or stimulus presentations in variable-time schedules

Pigeons responded in a two-alternative forced-choice task in which reinforcement was dependent upon the frequency of events that occurred in an immediately preceding schedule sample. On a given trial the events were either brief food presentations or brief visual and auditory stimulus changes. High levels of stimulus control were obtained by food-presentation schedules only. Discriminative control by frequency or stimulus change was absent. Stimulus control by food frequency was decreased by the imposition of a delay period between the schedule sample and the choice. Moreover, stimulus control by food frequency was related to the ratio of food-presentation schedule pairs when novel schedules were presented in a transfer test.     

Control by stimulus features during fading.

Sixteen children were given four successive circle-size discrimination problems with luminance as the fading stimulus. Children who were first presented with a difficult size discrimination failed to acquire this discrimination. Those who first received an easy discrimination learned the difficult discrimination. At the end of each 10-trial block, two probe stimuli were presented to monitor any shift in control from luminance to size. One probe was the same size as the positive stimulus but of different luminance; the other was the same luminance but of different size. If, in the course of fading, size and luminance both controlled responding, fading was successful. If luminance alone controlled responding until the end of fading, the size discrimination was not established. Dual control, and thus successful fading, resulted when the target stimuli were very discriminable, or when the target stimuli were subtly different provided that previous fading series had first established less subtle discriminations.     

Delayed stimulus control: recall for single and relational stimuli.

In a discrete-trial symbolic matching-to-sample procedure, pigeons' left-key responses were reinforced following presentation of one center-key sample, and right-key responses were reinforced following presentation of another. Recallability was measured by the difference between log ratios of left to right responses following each sample. In Experiment 1, samples were successively presented same or different wavelengths in the relational discrimination, or individual wavelengths in the single discrimination. The rate at which recallability decreased with increasing delay since sample presentation was the same for single and relational discriminations, but the initial level of performance differed, indicating that the relational discrimination was more difficult. In Experiment 2, recall functions for easy and difficult discriminations between individual wavelengths also differed in levels of initial performance but not in rate of decrement of recallability over time. Recall for stimuli differing in complexity may therefore reflect differences in discrimination difficulty.     

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.     

Effects of spatial rearrangement of object components on picture recognition in pigeons.

Five pigeons were first trained to discriminate among line drawings of four objects: a watering can, an iron, a desk lamp, and a sailboat. The birds were then tested with eight versions of each object, in which the object's components were vertically and horizontally rearranged. The pigeons displayed different degrees of generalization decrement to the different scrambled versions of the objects. Two analyses helped to clarify the nature of the varied accuracy scores. First, cluster analyses disclosed subsets of components that were related to test performance. Second, although the clusters varied somewhat across birds for a given object, there was reliable concordance among the subjects in their rankings of the individual scramblings, suggesting that the pigeons may have attended to common aspects of the drawings.     

Does overall reinforcer rate affect discrimination of time‐based contingencies?

Overall reinforcer rate appears to affect choice. The mechanism for such an effect is uncertain, but may relate to reinforcer rate changing the discrimination of the relation between stimuli and reinforcers. We assessed whether a quantitative model based on a stimulus‐control approach could be used to account for the effects of overall reinforcer rate on choice under changing time‐based contingencies. On a two‐key concurrent schedule, the likely availability of a reinforcer reversed when a fixed time had elapsed since the last reinforcer, and the overall reinforcer rate was varied across conditions. Changes in the overall reinforcer rate produced a change in response bias, and some indication of a change in discrimination. These changes in bias and discrimination always occurred quickly, usually within the first session of a condition. The stimulus‐control approach provided an excellent account of the data, suggesting that changes in overall reinforcer rate affect choice because they alter the frequency of reinforcers obtained at different times, or in different stimulus contexts, and thus change the discriminated relation between stimuli and reinforcers. These findings support the notion that temporal and spatial discriminations can be understood in terms of discrimination of reinforcers across time and space.     

Stimulus class formation and concept learning: establishment of within- and between-set generalization and transitive relationships via conditional discrimination procedures

Three students with moderate mental retardation were taught a complex stimulus class with a two-choice conditional discrimination procedure applied across eight 10-member stimulus sets. Each set was composed of five age-appropriate and five age-inappropriate examples of clothing, accessories, and leisure items (e.g., a Walkman radio). Discrimination training was programmed serially across each set, and generalization probes were conducted concurrently among all sets. Generalization probes consisted of unreinforced conditional matching trials with comparison items being drawn from (a) the set undergoing training (within-set probes), (b) sets not undergoing training (between-set probes), and (c) both sample and comparison items from different sets (transitive stimulus control probes). Results indicate that within-set generalization, between-set generalization, and transitive stimulus relations controlled responding by all 3 students for items that had been contingently associated with reinforcement. However, items that gained control of responding through within-set and between-set generalization alone (i.e., not acquired through contingent reinforcement) remained at baseline levels during transitive stimulus control probes. Results are discussed in terms of a taxonomy of multiple sources of stimulus control that underlie socially defined and maintained stimulus classes.     

A note on the measurement of conditional discrimination.

An analysis of some extreme forms of stimulus control that a simple conditional-discrimination procedure can generate leads to the conclusion that accuracy does not provide an orderly scale of measurement. Dependence on accuracy to evaluate a conditional discrimination, particularly at intermediate levels of accuracy, can generate erroneous conclusions about the extent to which the controlling relations are those specified by the experimenter.     

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.