Conditional discrimination learning: A critique and amplification

Carter and Werner recently reviewed the literature on conditional discrimination learning by pigeons, which consists of studies of matching-to-sample and oddity-from-sample. They also discussed three models of such learning: the “multiple-rule” model (learning of stimulus-specific relations), the “configuration” model, and the “single-rule” model (concept learning). Although their treatment of the multiple-rule model, which seems most applicable to the pigeon data, is generally excellent, their discussion of the other two models is incomplete and sometimes inaccurate. Potential problems of terminology are discussed in the present paper, as are additional lines of research that deserve consideration by those interested in further work in this area. The issue of response versus stimulus selection (configuration versus compound-cue learning) is discussed in connection with the configuration model. Particular attention is given to Carter and Werner's criticism of the application, in studies with other species, of the learning set procedure in testing for single-rule learning. Some of the important related issues are: the bias for improvement on new problems in a series, the adequacy of a multiple-rule model to explain learning set formation, and evidence in favor of the single-rule model, at least in primates. Consideration of these additional contributions to the study of conditional discrimination learning emphasizes the usefulness of this task in the comparative study of cognitive processes.     

Food delivery as a conditional stimulus: Feature-learning and memory in pigeons

Three experiments investigated the learning and memory of discriminations based on presence versus absence of a pre-trial food delivery. In Experiment 1 half the illuminations of a response key were followed by food regardless of the subject's behavior. In one group an extra food delivery preceded only reinforced trials (feature-positive condition), whereas in a second group it preceded only nonreinforced trials (feature-negative condition). Key pecks and approaches revealed more rapid and superior discrimination learning in the first group. Experiment 2 replicated the results of Experiment 1 but yielded no evidence that greater “unexpectedness” of pretrial food conditions facilitates discriminative performance. In Experiment 3, individual pigeons trained on a conditional discrimination exhibited a within-subject feature-positive superiority. Delay between pretrial and trial stimuli interacted with feature-positive versus feature-negative training in both the between-group (Experiment 2) and within-subject (Experiment 3) procedures: performance was decremented at both short and long delays in the feature-positive condition but was decremented only at longer delays in the feature-negative condition. The feature-positive superiority obtained here is incompatible with explanations based on either the general concept of “perceptual organization” or on the conditional nature of feature-negative discriminations.     

Symmetry and transitivity of conditional relations in monkeys (Cebus apella) and pigeons (Columba livia)

In Experiment 1 six monkeys were tested with discriminative relations that were backward relative to their training in a 0-second conditional (“symbolic”) matching procedure. Although there was some indication of backward associations, the evidence was generally weak, and statistical evaluations did not reach conventional significance levels. Unlike children, who show backward associations to the point of symmetry, monkeys and pigeons display at best only weak and transient backward associations. In Experiment 2 associative transitivity was assessed across two sets of conditional matching tasks. All four monkeys tested demonstrated strong transitivity. In contrast, in Experiment 3 there was no evidence of transitivity in three pigeons tested under conditions closely comparable to those of Experiment 2. These results may identify some key features of interspecies differences and contribute to analyses of serial learning in animals.     

Generalization gradients of inhibition after different amounts of training

Five groups of pigeons received seven sessions of variable-interval reinforcement for pecking a blank white key, followed by either 1, 2, 4, 8, or 16 sessions of training on a successive discrimination in which the positive stimulus was the blank white key and the negative stimulus was a black vertical line on the white key. After training, a generalization test was administered along the line-tilt continuum. Relative gradients of inhibition became steeper with increased amounts of training, and reliably nonhorizontal absolute gradients were obtained only from groups of subjects with at least four days of training. Therefore, inhibitory stimulus control improves with added training. Several problems with the concept of “inhibition” are examined and some implications of the results for theoretical analyses of operant discrimination learning are discussed.     

Pigeons'' spatial memory: II. Acquisition of delayed matching of key location and transfer to new locations

Five hungry pigeons first received delayed matching of key location training. Trials began with a “ready” stimulus (brief operation of the grain feeder). Then one (randomly chosen) of a set of four keys 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 produced grain reinforcement, whereas a peck to the other key produced only the intertrial interval. After delayed matching of key location was learned, the remaining five key locations were introduced as samples. Four of the five birds performed at considerably above-chance levels on the novel sample trials during the first as well as subsequent sessions. These results suggest that pigeons sometimes learn the single rule—“choose the location that matches the sample.” The relevance of these results to the issue of whether pigeons learn a generalized matching rule (i.e., a concept of “sameness”) is discussed.     

Average uncertainty as a determinant of observing behavior

After discrimination training on a multiple variable-interval extinction schedule of food reinforcement, pigeons were placed on the uncued or mixed version of the same schedule and allowed to make an optional “observing response” that converted the uncued schedule to the corresponding cued schedule by providing a 20-sec exposure to the appropriate discriminative stimulus. The schedule consisted of one hundred 40-sec components, and the probability that any one of them would be a variable-interval component was systematically varied between 0.00 and 1.00. The results showed that the amount of observing behavior was an inverted “U” function of the probability of the variable-interval component. Few observing responses occurred at probabilities of 0.00 or 1.00, and maximum responding occurred at a value less than 0.50.     

Stimulus properties of conspecific behavior

Two experiments identified the conditions in which the behavior of one bird acquired discriminative control of the behavior of a second bird. The schedule-controlled behaviors of the “stimulus” bird were differentially correlated with the components of a multiple schedule according to which the pecking of an “experimental” bird produced food. In Experiment 1, three pairs of pigeons acquired a successive discrimination and two reversals with the conspecific stimuli. Experiment 2 included a control condition in which no systematic relationship existed between the conspecific stimuli and the component schedules. While differential responding during the components of the multiple schedule was again found when the conspecific stimuli were available, differential responding did not occur in the control condition. Test conditions included in the experiments indicated that (a) the differential responding was not dependent on the discriminative properties of reinforcement, (b) the pecking of the stimulus and experimental birds was temporally interrelated, (c) the visual conspecific stimuli were critical to the maintenance of the discrimination, and (d) the observed stimulus control immediately generalized to an unfamiliar conspecific.     

Testing complex animal cognition: Concept learning,proactive interference,and list memory

This article describes an approach for assessing and comparing complex cognition in rhesus monkeys and pigeons by training them in a sequence of synergistic tasks, each yielding a whole function for enhanced comparisons. These species were trained in similar same/different tasks with expanding training sets (8, 16, 32, 64, 128 … 1024 pictures) followed by novel‐stimulus transfer eventually resulting in full abstract‐concept learning. Concept‐learning functions revealed better rhesus transfer throughout and full concept learning at the 128 set, versus pigeons at the 256 set. They were then tested in delayed same/different tasks for proactive interference by inserting occasional tests within trial‐unique sessions where the test stimulus matched a previous sample stimulus (1, 2, 4, 8, 16 trials prior). Proactive‐interference functions revealed time‐based interference for pigeons (1, 10 s delays), but event‐based interference for rhesus (no effect of 1, 10, 20 s delays). They were then tested in list‐memory tasks by expanding the sample to four samples in trial‐unique sessions (minimizing proactive interference). The four‐item, list‐memory functions revealed strong recency memory at short delays, gradually changing to strong primacy memory at long delays over 30 s for rhesus, and 10 s for pigeons. Other species comparisons and future directions are discussed.     

Memory codes in pigeon short-term memory: Effects of varying the number of sample and comparison stimuli

In a delayed conditional discrimination task, pigeons can remember either some aspect of the conditional stimulus (i.e., they can code retrospectively) or some aspect of the stimulus to which they will respond at the end of the delay (i.e., they can code prospectively). To determine the nature of the memory code, we varied the number of possible sample stimuli (two or four) and the number of possible comparison stimuli (two or four) factorially across groups. Birds in all four groups were initially trained on a zero-delay, conditional discrimination with lines (vertical and horizontal) and/or shapes (circle and triangle), and were then tested with longer delays between sample offset and comparison onset. Acquisition of the conditional discrimination was affected by both the number of sample and comparison stimuli: birds were slower to reach criterion the greater the number in either stimulus set. During delay testing, however, only the number of comparisons affected performance. Overall, retention was poorer with four comparisons than with two. These data provide evidence for prospective coding in pigeon short-term memory.     

Stimulus control in the use of landmarks by pigeons in a touch-screen task

Pigeons were tested in a search task on the surface of a monitor on which their responses were registered by a touch-sensitive device. A graphic landmark array was presented consisting of a square outline (the frame) and a colored “landmark.” The unmarked goal, pecks at which produced reward, was located near the center of one edge of the frame, and the landmark was near it. The entire array was displaced without rotation on the monitor from trial to trial. On occasional no-reward tests, the following manipulations were made to the landmark array: (a) either the frame or the landmark was removed; (2) either one edge of the frame or the landmark was shifted; and (3) two landmarks were presented with or without the frame present. On these two-landmark tests, the frame, when present, defined which was the “correct” landmark. When the frame was absent, the “correct” landmark was arbitrarily determined. Results showed that pecks of 2 pigeons were controlled almost solely by the landmark, pecks of 3 were controlled primarily by the landmark but the frame could distinguish the correct landmark, and 1 bird's behavior was controlled primarily by the frame. Stimulus control in this search task is thus selective and differs across individuals. Comparisons to other search tasks and to other stimulus control experiments are made.     

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.     

Attention and generalization during a conditional discrimination

A conditional discrimination was established and analyzed, using four pigeons. The discrimination was among four compound stimuli projected on the response key—a white circle or triangle on a red or green background—during two conditions of illumination in the chamber, no illumination or flashing illumination. The two lighting conditions indicated whether the stimuli on the key containing triangles or those containing red would be the occasion for reinforcement. After the discrimination formed, generalization to intermediate and extreme values of the conditional stimulus and the attention of the birds to separate aspects of the stimulus on the key under each of the conditional stimuli were studied. All subjects generalized across values of the conditional stimulus, the lighting of the chamber. But subjects differed in the manner in which they treated the compound stimuli: two tended to attend to one or the other aspect of the stimulus on the key depending on the conditional stimulus, and two offered no evidence of such selective attention. Thus, the differential control of responding by the conditional stimuli cannot be attributed to a shift in attention between the figure and ground aspects of the compound stimuli.     

Errorless learning of a conditional temporal discrimination

In the present study we extended errorless learning to a conditional temporal discrimination. Pigeons' responses to a left-red key after a 2-s sample and to a right-green key after a 10-s sample were reinforced. There were two groups: One learned the discrimination through trial and error and the other through an errorless learning procedure. Then, both groups were presented with three types of tests. First, they were exposed to intermediate durations between 2 s and 10 s, and given a choice between both keys (stimulus generalization test). Second, a delay from 1 s to 16 s was included between the offset of the sample and the onset of the choice keys (delay test). Finally, pigeons learned a new discrimination in which the stimuli were switched (reversal test). Results showed that pigeons from the Errorless group made significantly fewer errors than those in the Trial-and-Error group. Both groups performed similarly during the stimulus generalization test and the reversal test, but results of the delay test suggested that, on long stimulus trials, responding in the errorless training group was less disrupted by delays.     

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.     

Detecting a nonevent: Delayed presence-versus-absence discrimination in pigeons

Eight pigeons were trained on a delayed presence-versus-absence discrimination paradigm in which a sample stimulus was presented on some trials but not on others. If a sample was presented, then a response to one choice key produced food. If no sample was presented, a response to the other choice key produced food. The basic finding was that performance remained constant and well above 50% correct on no-sample trials as the retention interval increased, whereas performance dropped precipitously (to below 50% correct) on sample trials. In the second phase of the experiment, all of the trials were no-sample trials, and reinforcers were delivered probabilistically for one group of pigeons and according to time-based schedules for the other group. The exact reinforcement probabilities used in Phase 2 were those calculated to be in effect on no-sample trials in Phase 1 (according to a discrete-state model of performance). Subjects did not show exclusive preference for the richer alternative on no-sample trials in the first phase, but those in the probabilistic group developed near-exclusive preference for the richer alternative during the second phase. These data are inconsistent with the predictions of the discrete-state model, but are easily accommodated by an account based on signal detection theory, which also can be applied effectively to discrimination of event duration and the “subjective shortening” effect.     

DISCRIMINATION LEARNING IN ADULTS WITH NEUROCOGNITIVE DISORDERS

Alzheimer's disease is the most commonly known neurocognitive disorder characterized by deterioration in areas such as memory, attention, and activities of daily living. From a behavioral perspective, memory and attentional deficits may be described as deterioration of stimulus control. This paper provides a case study of discrimination behavior in a patient with neurocognitive disorder. The purpose of the current study was twofold: (i) to study the effect of using presumed familiar pictures in arbitrary matching‐to‐sample tasks and (ii) to study variables that affect stimulus control in a patient diagnosed with vascular dementia. There were 12 conditional discrimination experimental conditions with various types of stimuli, from familiar pictures to identity matching. The results showed that the participant's responses were not in accord with experimenter‐defined stimulus classes when using familiar pictures. However, intact stimulus control by sample stimulus was established following systematic procedural changes in the conditional discrimination tasks. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Inhibitory control and errorless discrimination learning

Pigeons learned to discriminate between a positive stimulus (white key) and a negative stimulus (red or green key, depending on the subject) via Terrace's fading procedure. Generalization tests, conducted with intermittent reinforcement for key pecking at various wavelengths, yielded minima at the value of the negative stimulus in most “errorless” birds. Terrace's contrary finding of flat gradients in errorless subjects probably resulted from a floor-effect (i.e., virtually zero responding) produced by his extinction-test procedure. The present and other findings do not support Terrace's conclusions that the negative stimulus of an errorless discrimination is behaviorally neutral; inhibition apparently develops to the nonreinforced stimulus even during errorless discrimination learning. A negative correlation between stimulus and reinforcer seems the crucial factor in producing an inhibitory stimulus.     

The effectiveness of fading in programming a simultaneous form discrimination for retarded children

A non-verbal teaching program, combined with reinforcement and extinction (Program Group), was compared with reinforcement and extinction alone (Test Group) in teaching retarded children to discriminate circles from ellipses. In the Program Group, fading techniques were used to transfer stimulus control from “bright vs. dark” to “form vs. no-form” and then to “circle vs. ellipse”. The Test Group had the task of learning the circle-ellipse discrimination with no prior teaching program. With the program, seven of 10 children learned the circle-ellipse discrimination. Without the program, one of nine learned. The eight Test-Group children who failed to learn circle vs. ellipse were then given the opportunity to learn the form no-form discrimination by reinforcement and extinction alone, without fading. Six of the eight learned, but only three of these six then learned circle vs. ellipse on a second test. All seven Program-Group children who had learned form vs. no-form also learned the circle-ellipse discrimination by means of fading; each of the seven made fewer errors than any of the three who succeeded on the second test. Children who failed to learn circle vs. ellipse adopted response patterns incompatible with the development of appropriate stimulus control.     

Some factors that influence the acquisition of complex, stereotyped, response sequences in pigeons

Two pigeons were required to peck six to nine illuminated response keys. A response on any one of the keys darkened that key. When each key had been darkened, a reinforcer was delivered. No specific sequence of key pecking was ever required. The keys were presented in various matrices: three by two, three by three, horizontal rows, and vertical columns. The keys either presented the same stimulus, white light; or each key presented a different stimulus, a color or form. The results indicated that although there were 720 to 362,880 different sequences that would produce reinforcement, each bird developed a particular, stereotyped sequence that dominated its behavior. Variability among the birds across phases yielded less than 60 sequences, .0001 to 6 percent of the possible sequences. The data suggest that a reinforcement contingency that includes “free choice” of response sequence will produce stereotypical response sequences that function as complex “units” of behavior.