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.     

Pigeons may not remember the stimuli that reinforced their recent behavior

In two experiments the conditioned reinforcing and delayed discriminative stimulus functions of stimuli that signal delays to reinforcement were studied. Pigeons' pecks to a center key produced delayed-matching-to-sample trials according to a variable-interval 60-s (or 30-s in 1 pigeon) schedule (Experiment 1) or a multiple variable-interval 20-s variable-interval 120-s schedule (Experiment 2). The trials consisted of a 2-s illumination of one of two sample key colors followed by delays ranging across phases from 0.1 to 27.0 s followed in turn by the presentation of matching and nonmatching comparison stimuli on the side keys. Pecks to the key color that matched the sample were reinforced with 4-s access to grain. Under some conditions of Experiment 1, pecks to nonmatching comparison stimuli produced a 4-s blackout and the start of the next interval. Under other conditions of Experiment 1 and each condition of Experiment 2, pecks to nonmatching stimuli had no effect and trials ended only when pigeons pecked the other, matching stimulus and received food. The functions relating pretrial response rates to delays differed markedly from those relating matching-to-sample accuracy to delays. Specifically, response rates remained relatively high until the longest delays (15.0 to 27.0 s) were arranged, at which point they fell to low levels. Matching accuracy was high at short delays, but fell to chance at delays between 3.0 and 9.0 s. In Experiment 2, both matching accuracy and response rates remained high over a wider range of delays in the variable-interval 120-s component relative to the variable-interval 20-s component. The difference in matching accuracy between the components was not due to an increased tendency in the variable-interval 20-s component toward proactive interference following short intervals. Thus, under these experimental conditions the conditioned reinforcing and the delayed discriminative functions of the sample stimulus depended on the same variables (delay and variable-interval value), but were nevertheless dissociated.     

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.     

Delayed reinforcement and delayed choice in symbolic matching to sample: Effects on stimulus discriminability

Six pigeons were trained to peck a red side key when the brighter of two white lights (S₁) had been presented on the center key, and to peck a green side key when the dimmer of two white lights (S₂) had been presented on the center key. Equal frequencies of reinforcers were provided for the two types of correct choice. Incorrect choices, red side-key pecks following S₂ presentations and green side-key pecks following S₁ presentations, resulted in blackout. With 0-s delay between choice and reinforcement, the delay between sample presentation and choice was varied from 0 to 20 s. Then, with 0-s delay between sample presentation and choice, the delay between choice and reinforcement was varied from 0 to 20 s. Both types of delay resulted in decreased discriminability (defined in terms of a signal-detection analysis) of the center-key stimuli, but delayed choice had more effect on discriminability than did delayed reinforcement. These data are consistent with the view that the two kinds of delay operate differently. The effect of a sample-choice delay may result from a degradation of the conditional discriminative stimuli during the delay; the effect of a choice-reinforcer delay may result from a decrement in control by differential reinforcement.     

Effect of delay-interval stimuli on delayed symbolic matching to sample in the pigeon

In Experiment 1, food-deprived pigeons received delayed symbolic matching to sample training in a darkened Skinner box. Trials began with the illumination of the grain feeder lamp (no food sample), or illumination of this lamp, accompanied by the raising of the feeder tray (food sample). After a delay of a few seconds, the two side response keys were illuminated, one with red and one with green light, with positions counterbalanced over trials. Pecking the red (green) comparison produced grain reinforcement if the trial had started with food (no food); pecking red after a no-food sample or green after a food sample was not reinforced. Once matching performance was stable, four stimuli were presented during the delay interval, and their effects on matching accuracy were evaluated. Both illumination of the houselight and the center key with white geometric forms decreased matching accuracy, whereas presentation of a tone and vibration of the test chamber did not. In Experiment 2, pecking the red center key was reinforced with food according to a variable interval schedule. The effects of occasional brief presentations of the four stimuli used in the first experiment on ongoing pecking were assessed. The houselight and form disturbed key pecking, but the tone and vibration did not. Thus, stimuli that interfered with delayed matching also interfered with simple operant behavior. Implications of these results for theories of remembering are discussed.     

Retrospective coding in pigeons' delayed matching-to-sample

In this study we examined how coding processes in pigeons' delayed matching-to-sample were affected by the stimuli to be remembered. In Experiment 1, two groups of pigeons initially learned 0-delay matching-to-sample with identical comparison stimuli (vertical and horizontal lines) but with different sample stimuli (red and green hues or vertical and horizontal lines). Longer delays were then introduced between sample offset and comparison onset to assess whether pigeons were prospectively coding the same events (viz., the correct line comparisons) or retrospectively coding different events (viz., their respective sample stimuli). The hue-sample group matched more accurately and showed a slower rate of forgetting than the line-sample group. In Experiment 2, pigeons were trained with either hues or lines as both sample and comparison stimuli, or with hue samples and line comparisons or vice versa. Subsequent delay tests revealed that the hue-sample groups remembered more accurately and generally showed slower rates of forgetting than the line-sample groups. Comparison dimension had little or no effect on performance. Together, these data suggest that pigeons retrospectively code the samples in delayed matching-to-sample.     

Choice with probabilistic reinforcement: effects of delay and conditioned reinforcers.

Two experiments measured pigeons' choices between probabilistic reinforcers and certain but delayed reinforcers. In Experiment 1, a peck on a red key led to a 5-s delay and then a possible reinforcer (with a probability of .2). A peck on a green key led to a certain reinforcer after an adjusting delay. This delay was adjusted over trials so as to estimate an indifference point, or a duration at which the two alternatives were chosen about equally often. In all conditions, red houselights were present during the 5-s delay on reinforced trials with the probabilistic alternative, but the houselight colors on nonreinforced trials differed across conditions. Subjects showed a stronger preference for the probabilistic alternative when the houselights were a different color (white or blue) during the delay on nonreinforced trials than when they were red on both reinforced and nonreinforced trials. These results supported the hypothesis that the value or effectiveness of a probabilistic reinforcer is inversely related to the cumulative time per reinforcer spent in the presence of stimuli associated with the probabilistic alternative. Experiment 2 tested some quantitative versions of this hypothesis by varying the delay for the probabilistic alternative (either 0 s or 2 s) and the probability of reinforcement (from .1 to 1.0). The results were best described by an equation that took into account both the cumulative durations of stimuli associated with the probabilistic reinforcer and the variability in these durations from one reinforcer to the next.     

Local proactive interference in delayed matching to sample: the role of reinforcement

Discriminability in delayed matching to sample was lower when the samples on consecutive trials differed compared with when samples on consecutive trials were the same. This local proactive interference occurred when correct choices on the previous trial were reinforced but not when correct choices on the previous trial were not reinforced. When the choice on the previous trial was incorrect, discriminability was higher on different consecutive trials than on same trials. These effects were amplified by varying the ratio of reinforcers for correct choices, as predicted by a model that attributes local proactive interference to an interaction between control by the sample on the current trial and the influence of reinforcers for correct choices on previous trials.     

The interaction between stimulus and reinforcer control on remembering.

In a symbolic matching-to-sample task, 6 pigeons obtained food by pecking a red side key when the brighter of two white lights had been presented on the center key and by pecking a green side key when the dimmer of two white lights had been presented on the center key. Across Part 1 and Parts 6 to 10, the delay between sample-stimulus presentation and the availability of the choice keys was varied between 0 s and 25 s. Across Parts 1 to 5, the delay between the emission of a correct choice and the delivery of a reinforcer was varied between 0 s and 30 s. Although increasing both types of delay decreased stimulus discriminability, lengthening the stimulus-choice delay produced a greater decrement in choice accuracy than did lengthening the choice-reinforcer delay. Additionally, the relative reinforcer rate for correct choice was varied across both types of delay. The sensitivity of behavior to the distribution of reinforcers decreased as discriminability decreased under both procedures. These data are consistent with the view, based on the generalized matching law, that sample stimuli and reinforcers interact in their control over remembering.     

Reinforcer control by comparison-stimulus color and location in a delayed matching-to-sample task

Six pigeons were trained in a delayed matching-to-sample task involving bright- and dim-yellow samples on a central key, a five-peck response requirement to either sample, a constant 1.5-s delay, and the presentation of comparison stimuli composed of red on the left key and green on the right key or vice versa. Green-key responses were occasionally reinforced following the dimmer-yellow sample, and red-key responses were occasionally reinforced following the brighter-yellow sample. Reinforcer delivery was controlled such that the distribution of reinforcers across both comparison-stimulus color and comparison-stimulus location could be varied systematically and independently across conditions. Matching accuracy was high throughout. The ratio of left to right side-key responses increased as the ratio of left to right reinforcers increased, the ratio of red to green responses increased as the ratio of red to green reinforcers increased, and there was no interaction between these variables. However, side-key biases were more sensitive to the distribution of reinforcers across key location than were comparison-color biases to the distribution of reinforcers across key color. An extension of Davison and Tustin's (1978) model of DMTS performance fit the data well, but the results were also consistent with an alternative theory of conditional discrimination performance (Jones, 2003) that calls for a conceptually distinct quantitative model.     

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.     

Token reinforcement, choice, and self-control in pigeons.

Pigeons were exposed to self-control procedures that involved illumination of light-emitting diodes (LEDs) as a form of token reinforcement. In a discrete-trials arrangement, subjects chose between one and three LEDs; each LED was exchangeable for 2-s access to food during distinct posttrial exchange periods. In Experiment 1, subjects generally preferred the immediate presentation of a single LED over the delayed presentation of three LEDs, but differences in the delay to the exchange period between the two options prevented a clear assessment of the relative influence of LED delay and exchange-period delay as determinants of choice. In Experiment 2, in which delays to the exchange period from either alternative were equal in most conditions, all subjects preferred the delayed three LEDs more often than in Experiment-1. In Experiment 3, subjects preferred the option that resulted in a greater amount of food more often if the choices also produced LEDs than if they did not. In Experiment 4, preference for the delayed three LEDs was obtained when delays to the exchange period were equal, but reversed in favor of an immediate single LED when the latter choice also resulted in quicker access to exchange periods. The overall pattern of results suggests that (a) delay to the exchange period is a more critical determinant of choice than is delay to token presentation; (b) tokens may function as conditioned reinforcers, although their discriminative properties may be responsible for the self-control that occurs under token reinforcer arrangements; and (c) previously reported differences in the self-control choices of humans and pigeons may have resulted at least in part from the procedural conventions of using token reinforcers with human subjects and food reinforcers with pigeon subjects.     

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.     

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)     

Intratrial proactive interference in pigeon short-term memory: Manipulation of stimulus dimension and dimensional similarity

Proactive interference was studied using an intratrial preparation in two delayed matching-to-sample experiments employing pigeons. On interference trials, an interfering sample and a target sample were presented successively and were followed by a test consisting of a choice between two stimuli, one associated with each sample. Control trials were identical to interference trials except that the interfering sample was not presented. On both types of trials, choice of the comparison corresponding to the target sample was defined as correct. Colored fields and line orientations were employed as sample stimuli in Experiment 1, and samples of food and no food and of number of pecks were employed in Experiment 2. Interference was found to be equally robust regardless of whether the interfering and target samples were each selected from any of the four dimensions (color, line orientation, food/no food, or number of pecks). Amount of interference was found to be independent of whether the interfering and target samples employed on a trial were selected from the same dimension or from different dimensions. Evidence was also obtained suggesting that line orientation comparison stimuli are more likely to elicit a response not based on memory than are color comparison stimuli.     

Stimulus similarity and order as factors in visual short-term memory in nonhuman primates.

The short-term retention of nonhuman primates for a single sample or for two successively presented samples was assessed in four delayed matching-to-sample experiments with delays of .03, 4, 8, 16, and 32 sec. The single sample tasks included one (Experiment 1) or two (Experiment 4) distractor stimuli in the choice set (matching test). In the two successive samples tasks, the animals matched (reconstructed) the order of presentation of two samples with (Experiment 3) and without (Experiment 2) a distractor stimulus. Also, the possible combinations of eight stimuli (four colors and four shapes) were arranged to test the effects of sample set and choice set similarity. Taken together, analyses of the errors indicated that both sample and choice set similarity were significant sources of confusions in delayed matching. Order errors occurred independently of similarity but were a source of forgetting primarily at the longest delays (16 and 32 sec). Two exceptions to the similarity effect (second response errors in Experiment 3 and errors of an inexperienced group in Experiment 4) were observed. Possible reasons for the exceptions and several implications of these findings for theories of short-term memory are discussed.     

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.     

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.     

On the role of differential sample behaviors in matching-to-sample

Pigeons were trained on matching-to-sample (MTS) with differential sample-response requirements that were identical with respect to two pairs of sample stimuli but were either correlated or uncorrelated with correct choice. Experiment 1A showed that birds in the uncorrelated condition were slower to reach criterion levels of accuracy than birds in the correlated condition in spite of their equivalent sample discriminations. However, correlated birds were more disrupted in their matching performances than the uncorrelated birds when subsequently switched to nondifferential sample-response requirements (Experiment 1B). Experiment 2 showed that differential sample behaviors also generated higher levels of accuracy on delayed MTS when correlated with choice, and that accuracy in this condition did not differ as a function of whether the samples were hues or lines. Sample dimension did affect memory performance, on the other hand, in the uncorrelated condition. In Experiment 3, reversing differential sample-response requirements for one pair of samples substantially reduced matching accuracy in the correlated group but had almost no effect in the uncorrelated group. These findings demonstrate that differential sample behaviors directly control pigeons' matching performances and also overshadow conditional stimulus control by the samples when these behaviors are predictive of correct choice. The facilitation in matching produced by differential sample behaviors apparently arises from the additional cue these behaviors provide, not because they enhance sample discriminability.     

Prospective versus retrospective coding of samples of stimuli,responses, and reinforcers in delayed matching with pigeons

Pigeons' performance with samples of stimuli (red and green), number of responses (1 and 20), and reinforcers (food and no food) was assessed in a matching-to-sample preparation. Samples of red, 20 responses, and food were each associated with the red comparison stimulus; samples of green, 1 response, and no food were each associated with the green comparison stimulus. Interest focused on whether physically different samples associated with the same comparison stimulus each establish a unique memorial representation embodying the physical attributes of the sample (retrospective coding), or whether they activate a unitary memorial representation embodying an instruction for test responding (prospective coding). In the first experiment, accuracy of choice responding was independent of whether successive sample presentations within a trial involved the same physical sample or physically different but associatively identical samples. A second experiment revealed that, in contrast to other matching preparations, accuracy was not reduced when sample elements were compounded during presentation. It was concluded that physically different samples which are associated with the same comparison stimulus are coded prospectively in terms of an instruction for choice responding.