A search for symmetry in the conditional discriminations of rhesus monkeys, baboons, and children.

Procedures for generating arbitrary matching-to-sample performances may generate only conditional discriminations. Rational grounds for this distinction are proposed, based on the properties that any equivalence relation must possess. Empirical tests are described for determining whether subjects trained on conditional discriminations are also engaged in true matching to sample. A series of studies than leads to the conclusion that proof of true matching to sample by monkeys, pigeons, or baboons is yet to be provided. Whether the absence of such proof reflects experiential factors or species-defined limitations is not presently clear.     

Baseline training sequence affects speed of emergent conditional discriminations

We examined the effects of baseline training sequence on the emergence of conditional discriminations in an intraverbal naming task. Thirty‐two college students were randomly assigned to two groups. The tact‐intraverbal (TI) group first learned to vocally tact eight visual stimuli using a unique verbal label for each stimulus, and then to intraverbally relate four pairs of verbal labels. The intraverbal‐tact (IT) group received the same training but in the opposite sequence. Both groups then received a match‐to‐sample test involving the visual stimuli alone. On average, the TI group had significantly shorter reaction times than the IT group throughout all four test blocks, even when controlling for intraverbal retention, which was lower in the IT group. Accuracy on the MTS test did not differ significantly between groups when controlling for intraverbal retention. However, MTS accuracy and intraverbal retention were strongly correlated in the IT group but uncorrelated in the TI group. We suggest the effect of training sequence reflects different sources of stimulus control available to subjects in different groups when confronted with the novel MTS trials.     

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.     

Adventitious control by the location of comparison stimuli in conditional discriminations.

In a conditional discrimination procedure, samples appeared in a center key, and comparisons appeared in two of four outer keys. The location of comparison keys varied from trial to trial. Separate learning curves for each of the six possible pairs of comparison keys were plotted in a signal-detection space, revealing different patterns of progress on each pair. Also, when learned conditional discriminations were disrupted, pairs of keys differed in their patterns of disruption. Varying the location of comparison stimuli among six different pairs of keys had not eliminated key position as a controlling aspect of the stimuli. The variations simply increased the number of stimulus compounds--key position and experimental stimuli--that the subject learned. Plotting conditional-discrimination learning curves in a signal-detection space reveals relations among hits, false alarms, accuracy, and comparison preference that help to define a subject's progress.     

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.     

An analysis of generalized contextual control of conditional discriminations

This research asked whether performance engendered by contextual control procedures would generalize to novel matching-to-sample stimulus arrangements. Two studies were conducted with young adult participants. In Study 1, participants first were trained to perform the contextually controlled conditional discrimination, X-AB, where the sample-comparison relations A1B1 and A2B2 were reinforced in the presence of contextual stimulus X1, but the relations A1B2 and A2B1 were reinforced in the presence of X2. Then, a new conditional discrimination, CD, was established via an unreinforced-conditional-selection procedure. Next, participants were tested for X-CD contextual control performance. Participants selected the originally established CD relations in the presence of X1, but the opposite relations in the presence of X2. Next, an additional conditional relation, EF, was established. Then, participants received trials consisting of entirely novel contextual stimuli, Z1 and Z2, and EF samples and comparisons. Selections were consistent with contextual control; that is, participants selected the originally established EF relations in the presence of one of the novel contextual Z stimuli, but selected the opposite EF relations in the presence of the other contextual Z stimulus. Study 2 systematically replicated these results with naive participants and demonstrated the necessity of first establishing a conditional discrimination prior to tests for generalized contextual control. The findings are discussed in terms of unreinforced conditional selection, stimulus classes, and new ways in which contextual control performances can emerge.     

A theory of attending and reinforcement in conditional discriminations

A model of conditional discrimination performance (Davison & Nevin, 1999) is combined with the notion that unmeasured attending to the sample and comparison stimuli, in the steady state and during disruption, depends on reinforcement in the same way as predicted for overt free-operant responding by behavioral momentum theory (Nevin & Grace, 2000). The rate of observing behavior, a measurable accompaniment of attending, is well described by an equation for steady-state responding derived from momentum theory, and the resistance to change of observing conforms to predictions of momentum theory, supporting a key assumption of the model. When probabilities of attending are less than 1.0, the model accounts for some aspects of conditional-discrimination performance that posed problems for the Davison-Nevin model: (a) the effects of differential reinforcement on the allocation of responses to the comparison stimuli and on accuracy in several matching-to-sample and signal-detection tasks where the differences between the stimuli or responses were varied across conditions, (b) the effects of overall reinforcer rate on the asymptotic level and resistance to change of both response rate and accuracy of matching to sample in multiple schedules, and (c) the effects of fixed-ratio reinforcement on accuracy. Some tests and extensions of the model are suggested, and the role of unmeasured events in behavior theory is considered.     

Transfer of relational stimulus control in conditional discriminations.

Four adults were trained, using instructions and a matching-to-sample procedure, to select Stimulus B1 in the presence of Stimulus A1, B2 in the presence of A2, and B3 in the presence of A3 (the AB relations). Analogous PQ relations were trained. Afterwards, one stimulus in Set A and another stimulus in Set B appeared together as a sample, and novel Stimuli X1 and X2 were the comparisons. Responses to X1 were reinforced if the two stimuli in the sample had been related in the previous training (e.g., A1 and B1), and responses to X2 were reinforced if the two samples had not been related (e.g., A1 and B2). These were the ABX relations. In a test in which a stimulus of Set P and another of Set Q were the samples and X1 and X2 were the comparisons, 2 subjects selected X1 when the samples were P1 and Q1, P2 and Q2, and P3 and Q3, and selected X2 in the presence of the other six sample combinations (P1Q2, P1Q3, P2Q1, P2Q3, P3Q1, and P3Q2). Another subject showed the same responding after additional training. In the second experiment, 3 adults and an 11-year-old child were trained on AB, PQ, and ABX relations, and they showed the symmetrical relations BA and QP upon testing. Then all 4 of these subjects responded accurately to the PQX test. Results of Experiments 1 and 2 showed novel, consistent comparison selection based on the previously established relation between the two stimuli in the sample. In a third experiment, 3 of the subjects who had shown PQX relations were trained on EFX relations, with pairs of E and F stimuli as samples and X stimuli as comparisons. When the EF relations were tested, all 3 subjects consistently selected F1 in the presence of E1, F2 in the presence of E2, and F3 in the presence of E3 from the first trial. The results of Experiment 3 showed novel stimulus relations after training with a more complex conditional discrimination format.     

Stimulus presentation order in receptive identification tasks: A systematic replication

Conflicting recommendations exist in the literature regarding the optimal order of stimulus presentation when teaching auditory–visual conditional discriminations. The present study examined the generality of a previously demonstrated advantage of presenting the auditory sample before visual comparisons (sample‐first condition) over the reverse sequence (comparison‐first condition). Participants were four typically developing 5‐ and 6‐year‐old boys. The procedures of Petursdottir and Aguilar (2016) were systematically replicated with the addition of a prompted error correction trial following each incorrect response. Overall, there were more instances of quicker mastery in the sample‐first condition (four of seven evaluations) than in the comparison‐first condition (two of seven evaluations). A comparison‐first advantage was associated with slower acquisition in both conditions than in the remaining evaluations, and an analysis of stimulus and position bias yielded tentative evidence for unwanted sources of stimulus control.     

Differential sample response schedules in the acquisition of conditional discriminations by pigeons

Pigeons were trained on four matching-to-sample tasks with various schedule requirements in effect on the sample key. Differential sample-schedule requirements (a differential-reinforcement-of-low-rates of 3 sec in the presence of one sample and a fixed-ratio 16 in the presence of the other) produced rapid rates of acquisition that did not differ across tasks. Nondifferential sample-schedule requirements (fixed-ratio 1, fixed-ratio 16 or a differential-reinforcement-of-low-rates of 3 sec in the presence of both samples) produced slower rates of acquisition, which depended on the difficulty of the discriminations between samples and between comparisons. Patterns of stimulus and position preferences were influenced both by the comparison stimuli in each task and by the sample-schedule requirements. Detailed analyses of acquisition revealed frequent instances of complete differential sample control of comparison responding at intermediate levels of overall “accuracy”.     

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.     

Acquisition of arbitrary conditional discriminations by young normally developing children

Three experiments investigated conditions designed to facilitate acquisition of arbitrary conditional discriminations in 3- to 6-year-old normally developing children. In Experiment 1, 6 subjects failed to master the arbitrary match-to-sample task under conditions of differential reinforcement alone, but 7 subjects did so when instructions or instructions and sample naming were added. In Experiment 2, sample naming introduced in a blocked-trial arrangement resulted in acquisition, but only when the sample name was a nonsense syllable provided by the experimenter (5 of 7 subjects) and not when the sample name was generated by the subject (0 of 5 subjects). Experiment 3 demonstrated the effectiveness of a training sequence involving thematically related stimuli as an intermediate step facilitating the transition from identity to novel arbitrary relations. The difficulties in mastering arbitrary conditional discriminations shown here imply that further analyses with young children will be particularly important in efforts to investigate the development of theoretically important stimulus relations.     

CONDITIONAL DISCRIMINATION VS. MATCHING TO SAMPLE: AN EXPANSION OF THE TESTING PARADIGM

A subject's performance under a conditional-discrimination procedure defines conditional relations between stimuli: “If A1, then B1; if A2, then B2.” The procedure may also generate matching to sample. If so, the stimuli will be related not only by conditionality, but by equivalence: A1 and B1 will become equivalent members of one stimulus class, A2 and B2 of another. One paradigm for testing whether a conditional-discrimination procedure has generated equivalence relations uses three sets of stimuli, A, B, and C, three stimuli per set. Subjects learn to select Set-B and Set-C comparisons conditionally upon Set-A samples. Having been explicitly taught six sample-comparison relations, A1B1, A1C1, A2B2, A2C2, A3B3, and A3C3, subjects prove immediately capable of matching the B- and C-stimuli; six new relations emerge (B1C1, B2C2, B3C3, C1B1, C2B2, C3B3). The 12 stimulus relations, six taught and six emergent, define the existence of three three-member stimulus classes, A1B1C1, A2B2C2, and A3B3C3. This paradigm was expanded by introducing three more stimuli (Set D), and teaching eight children not only the AB and AC relations but DC relations also—selecting Set-C comparisons conditionally upon Set-D samples. Six of the children proved immediately capable of matching the B- and D-stimuli to each other. By selecting appropriate Set-B comparisons conditionally upon Set-D samples, and Set-D comparisons conditionally upon Set-B samples, they demonstrated the existence of three four-member stimulus classes, A1B1C1D1, A2B2C2D2, and A3B3C3D3. These larger classes were confirmed by the subjects' success with the prerequisite lower-level conditional relations; they were also able to select Set-D comparisons conditionally upon samples from Sets A and C, and to do the BC and CB matching that defined the original three-member classes. Adding the three DC relations therefore generated 12 more, three each in BD, DB, AD, and CD. Enlarging each class by one member brought about a disproportionate increase in the number of emergent relations. Ancillary oral naming tests suggested that the subject's application of the same name to each stimulus was neither necessary nor sufficient to establish classes of equivalent stimuli.     

Stimulus class membership established via stimulus-reinforcer relations

In an arbitrary matching-to-sample procedure, two mentally retarded subjects learned conditional discriminations with two sets of stimuli. Each set included a spoken name (N1 or N2), an object (O1 or O2), and a printed symbol (S1 or S2). One subject selected conditionally (a) O1 upon N1, and O2 upon N2, and (b) S1 upon O1, and S2 upon O2. The other subject selected conditionally (a) S1 upon N1, and S2 upon N2, and (b) O1 upon S1, and O2 upon S2. For both subjects, selections of O1 and S1 produced one type of food, F1; selections of O2 and S2 produced a different type of food, F2. Both subjects also learned identity-matching performances, selecting O1, O2, S1, S2, F1, and F2 conditionally upon those stimuli as samples; F1 followed selections of O1, S1, and F1; F2 followed selections of O2, S2, and F2. Matching performances consistent with stimulus class formation involving the names, objects, symbols, and foods were demonstrated on probe trials, even though these performances had not been taught explicitly. Next, new objects, X1 and X2, were presented on identity-matching trials, producing F1 and F2, respectively. Without further training, X1 was selected conditionally upon N1, S1, and O1, and X2 was selected upon N2, S2, and O2. When the contingencies were changed so that selections of X1 and X2 were now followed by F2 and F1, respectively, X2 was selected conditionally upon N1, S1, and O1, and X1 was selected upon N2, S2, and O2. Class membership of X1 and X2 had apparently changed. This study provides evidence that reinforcers may become members of stimulus classes, and that new stimuli may become class members through relations with reinforcers.     

Conjoint control of performance in conditional discriminations by successive and simultaneous stimuli.

In a conditional discrimination, reinforcement of pigeons' responses to pairs of simultaneously presented wavelength stimuli depended on the orientation of white lines superimposed on the wavelengths. Over different conditions in Experiment 1, three wavelength differences were combined with two differences between successively presented line orientations. Measures of stimulus discriminability increased with increases in the difference between both orientation and wavelength stimuli. Conditional-discrimination performance was thus conjointly determined by stimulus disparity in the successive and simultaneous discriminations. In Experiment 2, ratios of rates of reinforcement contingent upon the two categories of correct responses were varied over several conditions for difficult and easy discriminations. Ratios of responses to wavelength pairs were sensitive to variations in the reinforcement ratio to a greater extent for the more difficult orientation discrimination than for the easier orientation discrimination. Performance in the conditional discrimination was therefore determined by the interacting effects of stimulus disparity and the relative rates of reinforcement contingent upon the two correct choices. It was concluded that the effect of temporally distant reinforcement on behavior in a prevailing schedule component is attenuated to an extent that depends on similarity of stimuli that delineate the successive components.     

Signal-detection analyses of conditional discrimination and delayed matching-to-sample performance

Quantitative analyses of stimulus control and reinforcer control in conditional discriminations and delayed matching-to-sample procedures often encounter a problem; it is not clear how to analyze data when subjects have not made errors. The present article examines two common methods for overcoming this problem. Monte Carlo simulations of performance demonstrated that both methods introduced systematic deviations into the results, and that there were genuine risks of drawing misleading conclusions concerning behavioral models of signal detection and animal short-term memory.     

Testing for symmetry in the conditional discriminations of language-trained chimpanzees

If subjects are taught to match Stimulus A to B and then, without further training, match B to A, they have passed a test of symmetry. It has been suggested that non-humans' lack of success on symmetry tests might be overcome by giving them a history of symmetry exemplar training, that is, by directly teaching a large number of conditional relations (e.g., AB, CD, EF,...) and also directly training the "reverse" of these relations (e.g., BA, DC, FE,...). The chimpanzee subjects of the present study, Sherman, Austin, and Lana, had already received extensive symmetry exemplar training as a result of attempts to teach a selection-based language system of lexigrams. The present study systematically subjected 2 of these chimps (Sherman and Lana), for the first time, to standard symmetry tests in controlled conditions. Both chimps failed the tests, even when their correct responses on test trials were reinforced. The findings do not support the exemplar training hypothesis, and cast doubt upon whether the chimps can pass tests of stimulus equivalence.     

Emergent, untrained stimulus relations in many-to-one matching-to-sample discriminations in rats

The present experiment investigated whether rats formed emergent, untrained stimulus relations in many-to-one matching-to-sample discriminations. In Phase 1, rats were trained to match two samples (triangle and horizontal stripes) to a common comparison (horizontal stripes) and two additional samples (circle or vertical stripes) to another comparison (vertical stripes). Then, in Phase 2, the rats were trained to match the one sample (triangle) to a new comparison (black) and the other sample (circle) to another comparison (white). In the Phase 3 test, half the rats (consistent group) were given two new tasks in which the sample-correct comparison relation was consistent with any emergent stimulus relations that previously may have been learned. The remaining 6 rats (inconsistent group) were given two new tasks in which the sample-correct comparison relation was not consistent with any previously learned emergent stimulus relations. Rats in the consistent group showed more accurate performance at the start of Phase 3, and faster learning to criterion in this phase, as compared with rats in the inconsistent group. This finding suggests that rats may form emergent, untrained stimulus relations between the discriminative stimuli in many-to-one matching-to-sample discriminations.