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.     

Use of an ambiguous-sample procedure to establish a cue to forget in pigeons

Pigeons were trained on a variation of the matching-to-sample task in which on double-sample trials two samples, one associated with each of the comparison stimuli, were presented successively. Responding to the comparison associated with the first sample was reinforced on half the double-sample trials, and responding to the comparison associated with the second sample was reinforced on the remaining half. One of two postsample stimuli was presented following the termination of each colored sample. A vertical line was presented after a correct or target sample, and a horizontal line was presented after an incorrect or interfering sample. With extended training, each bird demonstrated above-chance accuracy on double-sample trials, providing prima facie evidence that one or both of the postsample stimuli exerted control over matching behavior. Experiment 2 provided evidence that the horizontal line functioned as a cue to forget the code activated by the preceding sample stimulus. It was concluded that a condition sufficient to establish a postsample stimulus as a cue to forget is that the postsample immediately follow presentation of a sample that, if it were to control test responding, would lead to nonreinforcement.     

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.     

Delayed matching-to-sample performance: Effects of relative reinforcer frequency and of signaled versus unsignaled reinforcer magnitudes

Six pigeons were trained on a delayed red-green matching-to-sample task that arranged four delays within sessions. Matching responses intermittently produced either 1.5-s access to food or 4.5-s access to food, and nonmatching responses produced either 1.5-s or 4.5-s blackout. Two phases were conducted: a signaled phase in which the reinforcer magnitudes (small and large) were signaled by houselights (positioned either on the left or right of the chamber), and an unsignaled phase in which there was no correlation between reinforcer magnitude and houselight position. In both phases, the relative frequency with which red and green matching responses produced food was varied across five values. Both matching accuracy and the sensitivity of performance to the distribution of reinforcers for matching responses decreased with increasing delays in both phases. In addition, accuracy and reinforcer sensitivity were significantly lower on signaled small-reinforcer trials compared with accuracy and sensitivity values on signaled large-reinforcer trials and on both types of unsignaled trials. These results are discussed in the context of research on both nonhuman animal and human memory.     

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 depends on the subjective value of the outcome

Stimuli that provide information about likely future reinforcers tend to shift behavior, provided a reliable relation between the stimulus and the reinforcer can be discriminated. Stimuli that are apparently more reliable exert greater control over behavior. We asked how the subjective value (measured in terms of preference) of reinforcers associated with stimuli influences stimulus control. Five pigeons worked on a concurrent chains procedure in which half of all trials ended in a smaller reinforcer sooner, and the other half in a larger reinforcer later. In Signaled trials, the color and flash duration on the keys in the initial link signaled the outcome of the trial. In Conflicting probe trials, the color and the flash duration signaled conflicting information about the outcome of the trial. Choice in Signaled trials shifted toward the signaled outcome, but was never exclusive. In Conflicting probe trials, control was divided idiosyncratically between the 2 stimulus dimensions, but still favored the outcome with the higher subjective value. Thus, stimulus control depends not only on the perceived reliability of stimuli, but also on the subjective value of the outcome.     

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.     

Reducing overselective stimulus control with differential observing responses

Overselective stimulus control refers to discriminative control in which the number of controlling stimuli is too limited for effective behavior. Experiment 1 included 22 special‐education students who exhibited overselective stimulus control on a two‐sample delayed matching task. An intervention added a compound identity matching opportunity within the sample observation period of the matching trials. The compound matching functioned as a differential observing response (DOR) in that high accuracy verified observation and discrimination of both sample stimuli. Nineteen participants learned to perform the DOR and two‐sample delayed matching accuracy increased substantially for 16 of them. When the DOR was completely withdrawn after 10 sessions, accuracy declined. In Experiment 2, a more gradual withdrawal of DOR requirements showed that highly accurate performance could be maintained with the DOR on only a proportion of trials for most participants. The results show that DOR training may lead to a general improvement in observing behavior.     

提取抑制:来自听觉定向遗忘的证据

两个实验采用语音材料考察了词表表达方式下听觉通道的定向遗忘效应以及相应的机制。实验一中,采用2（组别）×2（词表）混合实验设计获得了听觉通道的定向遗忘效应,但是较为模糊,部分数据显示可能是额外的被试个体差异导致的;实验二中,采用2（性别）×2（词表）×2（条件）×2（科系）混合实验设计,严格控制了被试个体差异等因素,获得了较清晰的定向遗忘效应,且支持提取抑制理论。     

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.     

Sample-duration effects on pigeons' delayed matching as a function of predictability of duration

Three experiments assessed the impact of sample duration on pigeons' delayed matching as a function of whether or not the samples themselves signaled how long they would remain on. When duration was uncorrelated with the sample appearing on each matching trial, the typical effect of duration was observed: Choice accuracy was higher with long (15-s) than with short (5-s) durations. By contrast, this difference either disappeared or reversed when the 5- and 15-s durations were correlated with the sample stimuli. Sample duration itself cued comparison choice by some birds in the latter (predictable) condition when duration was also correlated with the reinforced choice alternatives. However, even when duration could not provide a cue for choice, pigeons matched predictably short-duration samples as accurately as, or more accurately than, predictably long-duration samples. Moreover, this result was observed independently of whether the contextual conditions of the retention interval were the same as, or different from, those of the intertrial interval. These results strongly support the view that conditional stimulus control by the samples is partly a function of their conditioned reinforcing properties, as determined by the relative reduction in overall delay to reinforcement that they signal.     

Pigeons' spatial memory: III. Effect of distractors on delayed matching of key location.

The effect of distractors on pigeons' delayed matching of key location was investigated. Baseline trials began with a "ready" stimulus (brief operation of the grain feeder). Then one (randomly chosen) key from a three-by-three matrix was lit briefly as the sample. After a short delay (retention interval) the sample key was lit again along with one of the other eight keys. A peck at the key that had served as the sample (correct comparison) produced grain reinforcement, whereas a peck to the other key (incorrect comparison) produced only the intertrial interval. In Experiment 1, a houselight distractor, presented during either the sample, retention interval, or choice phases of the trial, had little if any effect on accuracy of matching key location. In Experiment 2, one of three types of spatial stimuli was interpolated during the retention interval, or the interval was blank as during baseline trials. The three stimuli were: the sample (correct comparison) location for that trial, the incorrect comparison location for that trial, or one of the seven unused locations for that trial. Relative to blank trials, accuracy improved slightly on sample-interpolated trials, decreased slightly on unused location-interpolated trials, and decreased considerably on incorrect comparison-interpolated trials. In Experiment 3, retention intervals were blank or had one of six types of interpolation: the sample, the incorrect comparison, two presentations of the sample, two presentations of the incorrect comparison, the sample followed by the incorrect comparison, or the incorrect comparison followed by the sample.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

Accuracy of discrimination,rate of responding,and resistance to change

Pigeons were trained on multiple schedules in which responding on a center key produced matching-to-sample trials according to the same variable-interval 30-s schedules in both components. Matching trials consisted of a vertical or tilted line sample on the center key followed by vertical and tilted comparisons on the side keys. Correct responses to comparison stimuli were reinforced with probability .80 in the rich component and .20 in the lean component. Baseline response rates and matching accuracies generally were higher in the rich component, consistent with previous research. When performance was disrupted by prefeeding, response-independent food during intercomponent intervals, intrusion of a delay between sample and comparison stimuli, or extinction, both response rates and matching accuracies generally decreased. Proportions of baseline response rate were greater in the rich component for all disrupters except delay, which had relatively small and inconsistent effects on response rate. By contrast, delay had large and consistent effects on matching accuracy, and proportions of baseline matching accuracy were greater in the rich component for all four disrupters. The dissociation of response rate and accuracy with delay reflects the localized impact of delay on matching performance. The similarity of the data for response rate and accuracy with prefeeding, response-independent food, and extinction shows that matching performance, like response rate, is more resistant to change in a rich than in a lean component. This result extends resistance to change analyses from the frequency of response emission to the degree of stimulus control, and suggests that the strength of discriminating, like the strength of responding, is positively related to rate of reinforcement.     

Memory mechanisms in pigeons: evidence of base-rate neglect

In delayed matching to sample, once acquired, pigeons presumably choose comparisons according to their memory for (the strength of) the sample. When memory for the sample is sufficiently weak, comparison choice should depend on the history of reinforcement associated with each of the comparison stimuli. In the present research, pigeons acquired two matching tasks in which Sample S1 was associated with one comparison from each task, C1 and C3, whereas Sample S2 was associated with Comparison C2, and Sample S3 was associated with Comparison C4. As the retention interval increased, the pigeons showed a bias to choose the comparison (C1 or C3) associated with the more frequently occurring sample (S1). Thus, pigeons were sensitive also to the (irrelevant) likelihood that each of the samples was presented. The results suggest that pigeons may allow their reference memory for the overall sample frequency to influence comparison choice, independent of the comparison stimuli present.     

TESTS FOR CONTROL BY EXCLUSION AND NEGATIVE STIMULUS RELATIONS OF ARBITRARY MATCHING TO SAMPLE IN A “SYMMETRY-EMERGENT” CHIMPANZEE

In the present experiments, controlling relations in arbitrary matching-to-sample performance were tested in a 9-year-old female chimpanzee who showed statistically significant emergence of symmetry in previous two-choice conditional discrimination experiments. In Experiment 1, a novel (undefined) sample stimulus was followed by a pair of trained (defined) and undefined comparison stimuli to assess the control by exclusion in arbitrary matching. The chimpanzee selected the undefined shape comparison, excluding the defined one, in color-sample-to-shape-comparison probe trials, although stimulus preferences were relatively stronger than control by exclusion in shape-sample trials. An additional test for control by relations of the sample to the positive comparison (S+ control) showed that her behavior was also under the control of relations of the sample to the positive comparison. In Experiment 2, a defined sample was followed by a pair of negatively defined and undefined comparisons to test control by the relations of the sample to the negative comparison. (S- control). The subject selected undefined comparisons in both color-shape and shape-color test trials. These results clearly indicate that the conditional discrimination behavior of this “symmetry-emergent” chimpanzee was under both S+ and S- control. Furthermore, her performance was also under control by exclusion in color-shape arbitrary matching, unlike other chimpanzees who showed no evidence of symmetry but only S+ control of arbitrary matching.     

Control by past and present stimuli depends on the discriminated reinforcer differential

The extent to which a stimulus exerts control over behavior depends largely on its informativeness. However, when reinforcers have discriminative properties, they often exert less control over behavior than do other less reliable stimuli such as elapsed time. We investigated why less reliable cues in the present often overshadow stimulus control by more reliable cues presented in the recent past, by manipulating the reliability and duration of stimulus presentations. Five pigeons worked on a modified concurrent schedule in which the location of the response that produced the last reinforcer was a discriminative stimulus for the likely time and location of the next reinforcer. In some conditions, either the location of the previous reinforcer, or the location of the next reinforcer, was signaled by a red key light. This stimulus was either Brief, occurring for 10 s starting a fixed time after the most recent reinforcer, or Extended, being present at all times between food deliveries. Brief and Extended stimuli that signaled the same information had a similar effect on choice when they were present, but control by Brief stimuli weakened as time since stimulus offset elapsed. Control was divided among stimuli in the present and recent past according to the apparent reliability of the information signaled about the next reinforcer. More reliable stimuli in the present degraded, but did not erase, control by less reliable stimuli presented in the recent past. Thus, we conclude that less reliable stimuli in the present control behavior to a greater degree than do more reliable stimuli in the recent past because these more reliable stimuli are forgotten, and hence their relation to the likely availability of food cannot be discriminated.     

Development of a single-code/default coding strategy in pigeons

We tested the hypothesis that pigeons could use a cognitively efficient coding strategy by training them on a conditional discrimination (delayed symbolic matching) in which one alternative was correct following the presentation of one sample (one-to-one), whereas the other alternative was correct following the presentation of any one of four other samples (many-to-one). When retention intervals of different durations were inserted between the offset of the sample and the onset of the choice stimuli, divergent retention functions were found. With increasing retention interval, matching accuracy on trials involving any of the many-to-one samples was increasingly better than matching accuracy on trials involving the one-to-one sample. Furthermore, following this test, pigeons treated a novel sample as if it had been one of the many-to-one samples. The data suggest that rather than learning each of the five sample-comparison associations independently, the pigeons developed a cognitively efficient single-code/default coding strategy.     

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.     

Controlling relations in conditional discrimination and matching by exclusion.

Normally capable adults learned two-choice identity matching of three-digit numerals and arbitrary matching of physically dissimilar nonsense syllables. The stimuli were displayed on a computer terminal, and responses consisted of typing on the terminal's keyboard. In Experiment 1, every trial displayed a sample numeral, a comparison numeral, and three equal signs (= = =). The comparison stimulus was to be selected if it was identical with the sample; otherwise the equal sign was to be selected. This "single comparison" method was then used to show that arbitrary matching could be based upon either sample-S+ or sample-S- relations. In Experiment 2, a series of probe trials displayed a novel sample, a comparison stimulus from the arbitrary matching baseline, and = = =. Subjects typically selected = = =; they apparently were excluding the baseline comparison stimulus. Experiments 3 through 5 investigated which variables in training would lead to the selection of baseline comparison stimuli in response to novel samples. Behavior was usually unchanged when baseline training included relating comparison stimuli to as many as four different samples. Punishment contingencies were effective, but performance did not generalize unless those contingencies were applied in relation to more than one baseline comparison stimulus.     

Reinforcer frequency and restricted stimulus control.

Stimulus control was evaluated in 3 individuals with moderate to severe mental retardation by delayed identity matching-to-sample procedures that presented either one or two discrete forms as sample stimuli on each trial. On pretests, accuracy scores on one-sample trials were uniformly high. On two-sample trials, the correct stimulus (i.e., the one that subsequently appeared in the comparison array) varied unpredictably, and accuracy scores were substantially lower, suggesting that both sample stimuli did not exert stimulus control on every trial. Subjects were then given training sessions with the one-sample task and with a new set of four stimuli. For two of the stimuli, correct matching responses were followed by reinforcers on a variable-ratio schedule that led to a high reinforcer rate. For the other two stimuli, correct responses were followed by reinforcers on a variable-ratio schedule that led to a substantially lower reinforcer rate. Results on two-sample tests that followed showed that (a) on trials in which comparison arrays consisted of one high reinforcer-rate and one low reinforcer-rate stimulus, subjects most often selected the high-rate stimulus; and (b) on trials in which the comparison arrays were either two high reinforcer-rate stimuli or two low reinforcer-rate stimuli and the samples were one high reinforcer- and one low reinforcer-rate stimulus, accuracy was higher on trials with the high-rate comparisons. These results indicate that the frequency of stimulus control by high reinforcer-rate samples was greater than that by low reinforcer-rate samples. Following more training with the one-sample task and reversed reinforcement schedules for all stimuli, the differences in stimulus control frequencies on two-sample tests also reversed. These results demonstrate experimental control by reinforcement contingencies of which of two sample stimuli controlled selections in the two-sample task. The procedures and results may prove to be relevant for understanding restricted stimulus control and stimulus overselectivity.