Acquisition of matching-to-sample performance in rats using visual stimuli on nose keys.

Steady and blinking white lights were projected on three nose keys arranged horizontally on one wall. The procedure was a conditional discrimination with a sample stimulus presented on the middle key and comparison stimuli on the side keys. Three rats acquired simultaneous "identity matching." Accuracy reached 80% in about 25 sessions and 90% or higher after about 50 sessions. Acquisition progressed through several stages of repeated errors, alteration between comparison keys from trial to trial, preference of specific keys or stimuli, and a gradual lengthening of strings of consecutive trials with correct responses. An analysis of the acquisition curves for individual trial configurations indicated that the matching-to-sample performance possibly consisted of separate discriminations.     

MATCHING-TO-SAMPLE PERFORMANCE IN RATS: A CASE OF MISTAKEN IDENTITY?

Three rats had previously acquired a simultaneous matching-to-sample performance with steady and blinking lights. In training, the sample stimulus had always appeared on the middle of three horizontally arranged keys with the comparison stimuli on the side keys. In Experiment 1, the sample stimulus appeared on any of the three keys with the comparison stimuli on the remaining two. The matching-to-sample performance broke down with variable sample and comparison locations; the sample stimulus did not control responding to the comparison stimuli when it appeared on a side key, but it retained control when it appeared on the middle key (as in training). In Experiment 2, the rats were trained with the sample always on the left key. When the sample appeared on either of the trained locations (left or middle key), it retained control for both locations. When the sample then appeared on any of the three keys, as in Experiment 1, sample control did not transfer to the untrained location (right key). The experiments demonstrate that training with fixed sample and comparison locations may establish spatial location as an additional controlling aspect of the stimuli displayed on the keys; stimulus location had become part of the definition of the controlling stimuli. The rats' performance seemed best described as specific discriminations involving the visual stimuli and their spatial locations rather than as identity matching.     

Conditional discrimination with ambiguous stimuli.

Five pigeons learned a two-key conditional discrimination. When background color on both keys was red, pecks on the key with a horizontal line produced food. When the color was green, pecks on the key with a vertical line produced food. During part of the experiment, color was presented on only one of the keys. It was found that accuracy was higher when color was combined with the line stimulus correlated with nonreinforcement. In another part of the experiment, color was presented on both keys but a line was present only on one. Accuracy was higher when the line accompanied the nonreinforced option than when the line accompanied the reinforced option. Superior performance when the combined stimuli were displayed on the nonfood key may be explained by the association of different components of the compound stimuli with reinforcement or as the result of rules pigeons follow in solving conditional discriminations.     

An investigation of peak shift and behavioral contrast for autoshaped and operant behavior.

Instrumental treadle press and nonreinforced key peck responses were monitored during discrimination training and generalization testing in pigeons on positive and negative reinforcement schedules. In Experiment 1, six pigeons pressed a treadle for food on a multiple variable-interval extinction schedule. In Experiment 2, three pigeons pressed a treadle to avoid shock on a multiple free-operant avoidance extinction schedule. Different color keylights signaled S+ and S- components. Some positive behavioral contrast occurred during discrimination training, but the effect was small. Pecking occurred to the S+ keylight in Experiment 1 but not in Experiment 2. On stimulus generalization tests, all subjects displayed a positive peak shift when pressing the treadle for food or to avoid shock. However, peak shift was not found for nonreinforced "autopecks" on the stimulus key, although an area shift was observed in Experiment 1. This is the first demonstration of peak shift for pigeons pressing treadles and the only reliable demonstration of peak shift when negative reinforcement maintained responding. These results, in combination with previous demonstrations of peak shift for rats pressing levers and pigeons pecking keys, indicate that peak shift is a general by-product of operant discrimination learning, since it occurs across a variety of the organisms, responses, and reinforcers.     

Deprivation and satiation: The interrelations between food and wheel running

Two experiments were designed to assess whether depriving rats of food would increase the reinforcement effectiveness of wheel running (Experiment 1) and whether satiation for wheel running would decrease the reinforcement effectiveness of food (Experiment 2). In Experiment 1, a progressive-ratio schedule was used to measure the reinforcement effectiveness of wheel running when rats were deprived or not deprived of food. Completion of a fixed number of lever presses released a brake on a running wheel for 60 s, and the response requirement was systematically increased until the rat stopped pressing or until 8 hr had elapsed. The ratio value reached (and the total number of lever presses) was an inverted-U function of food deprivation (percentage body weight). In Experiment 2, when wheel running preceded test sessions, fewer food-reinforced lever presses were maintained by the progressive-ratio schedule, and responding occurred at a lower rate on a variable-interval schedule. An interpretation of these results is that deprivation or satiation with respect to one event (such as food) alters the reinforcement effectiveness of a different event (such as access to wheel running).     

Correspondence as conditional stimulus control: insights from experiments with pigeons.

Correspondence between saying and doing, typically studied in young children and individuals with developmental disabilities, was examined as an instance of conditional stimulus control. In Experiment 1, 3 pigeons were exposed to a two‐component repeated‐trials procedure. In the first—sample or say—component, two response keys transilluminated by different colored lights were presented and the pigeon pecked one of the keys. After 1 s of darkness in the chamber, the second—choice or do—component was presented, in which the two keys again were transilluminated, one by the color selected in the first component and the second by another color. Selecting the color that matched that selected in the say component resulted in access to food. Selecting the other color produced a blackout of the chamber. After an intertrial interval (ITI), the next say component was programmed, and the procedure was repeated. Correspondence remained at chance levels through several manipulations of ITI duration and sample response requirement. When a correction procedure was added such that only the originally selected sample stimulus was re‐presented until a correct choice response occurred, reliable correspondence developed in 2 pigeons. This correspondence was eliminated by making reinforcement independent of correspondence and subsequently was reestablished when reinforcement again depended on correspondence. In Experiment 2, 3 other pigeons rapidly acquired correspondence under the final procedure used in Experiment 1. Increasing the time interval between the say and do components diminished correspondence. The results of the two experiments suggest how correspondence may be considered an instance of conditional stimulus control and that it is possible to construct a homologue of human say‐do correspondence with pigeons.     

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.     

Relationships between the determinants of performance in serial feature-positive discriminations

Three experiments using an appetitive behavioral observation procedure with rats investigated the effects of various pre- and postdiscrimination treatments on learning and performance in serial feature-positive discriminations. Previous work suggests that performance in this discrimination is based on feature-unconditioned stimulus (US) associations, feature-common element associations, and a conditional occasion-setting relation. Experiment 1 examined the effects of prediscrimination reinforcement of the various components of the discrimination. Experiments 2 and 3 investigated the effects of various postdiscrimination nonreinforcement and reinforcement procedures, respectively, on performance of previously established discriminative responding. The results of the present studies and those of previous work are interpreted to show that the conditional occasion-setting relation may be independent of feature-US associations and may not be dependent on feature-common element associations. The implications of assumming that rats used conditional information independently of simple associations are discussed.     

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.     

Performance of pigeons on delayed simple and conditional discriminations under equivalent training procedures

A pair of experiments investigated the short-term memory of pigeons under delayed simple and conditional discriminations. Trial sequences in both discriminations consisted of a color as the sample stimulus, a memory interval, a line orientation as the test stimulus, and a trial outcome, which was either food reinforcement or blackout. Pecking rates during the test stimulus defined discrimination performance. In the simple discrimination, the sample provided the necessary information regarding the subsequent trial outcome. In the conditional discrimination, the sample and test stimuli conjointly provided this information. In Experiment 1, the two procedures were compared with independent groups of pigeons. In Experiment 2, the comparison was made within subjects. The simple discrimination was acquired more quickly and was performed better with a memory requirement. Introduction of long delays disrupted performance even at shorter delays in both discriminations. Postulation of prospective as well as retrospective mediating processes facilitates the interpretation of these results.     

Behavioral interactions and stimulus control during conditional discriminations

Two pigeons were exposed to factorial combinations of two values of line tilt and two frequencies of houselight flashes. During each of four baseline stages, key pecking in the presence of all four combinations was reinforced according to a variable-interval schedule. The baseline phases were followed by four different conditional discrimination training procedures in which reinforcement availability for pecking in the presence of the line tilts depended upon the houselight frequency. The subjects acquired each conditional discrimination. Behavioral contrast occurred during the acquisition and abolition of the discriminations. Generalization tests, given after each conditional discrimination, revealed that both the line tilt and houselight frequency dimensions controlled pecking only after conditional discriminations in which reinforcement availability depended upon the value of both dimensions.     

Duration discrimination is better with food access as the signal than with light as the signal

In Experiment 1 a go/no-go discrimination procedure was used to compare control of five pigeons' keypecking by food-access duration with control by light duration. Pecks to an illuminated key were reinforced with grain following 10-sec presentations of food access or houselight, but not after 5-sec presentations of either stimulus. Each subject discriminated food-access duration faster and to a greater degree than light duration. In four between-subject replications, pigeons discriminated food-access duration better than the duration of a localized light, the feeder light and a keylight, and with either water or food as reinforcement. In Experiment 2 control by durations of food access and light was compared using a conditional right-left choice procedure (two pigeons), and a delayed symbolic matching-to-sample procedure (six pigeons). Under both, choice accuracy again was higher on food-access trials. The results of Experiment 3, in which two pigeons received generalization trials with durations of food access and light that were intermediate to the training values, confirmed that responding was controlled by the duration dimension of both food access and light. The superior control by food access is consistent with previous evidence that food is an effective and memorable stimulus, possibly because of its biological importance. These results also provided empirical support for the commonly made assumption that stimuli differ in effectiveness. As well, the results show that the stimulus to be discriminated can play an important role in the accuracy of duration disciminations, a fact which has implications for the study of temporal discriminations in animals.     

Response stereotypy without automaticity in pigeons

Previous research has shown that when pigeons are required to peck each of two keys four times in any order for reinforcement, stereotyped response sequences develop though they are not demanded by the task. The present experiment explored whether the functional value of sequence stereotypy was that sequences became automatized, freeing cognitive resources for other activities. Pigeons were exposed to variants of the task requiring four pecks on each key that differed in the degree of task stringency. Concurrent with the sequence task, pigeons were required to process the color of the keys in order to complete successfully either a matching or a conditional discrimination task. The delay between sequence execution and matching or discrimination choice was varied between 0 and 10 sec. Matching and discrimination accuracy were decreasing functions of delay, but the stringency of the concurrent sequence task had no effect on choice accuracy, suggesting that stereotyped sequences were automatized. However, the matching and discrimination tasks produced substantial disruptions of sequence performance, suggesting that stereotyped sequences were not automatized. The data were taken to suggest that response stereotypy need not imply automaticity.     

Time-place learning by pigeons, Columba livia

In each of two experiments, 2 pigeons received discrimination training in which food reinforcement for key pecking was conditional upon both spatial and temporal cues. In Experiment 1, food was available for periods of 30 s at each of three locations (pecking keys) during trials that lasted 90 s. In Experiment 2, food was available for periods of 15 min at each of four locations (pecking keys) during a 60-min trial. In both experiments, pigeons' key pecking was jointly controlled by the spatial and temporal cues. These data, and other recent experiments, suggest that animals learn relationships between temporal and spatial cues that predict stable patterns of food availability.     

Common control by compound samples in conditional discriminations

We tested whether teaching control by single stimulus samples in conditional discriminations would result in common control of two-stimuli compound samples, and vice versa. In Experiment 1, 5 participants were first taught four single-sample conditional discriminations. The first conditional discrimination was as follows: given sample stimulus P1, select comparison stimulus A1 and not A2; given sample P2 select comparison A2 and not A1. The second conditional discrimination was as follows: given sample P1 select comparison B1 and not B2; given sample P2 select B2 and not B1. Different sample stimuli (Q1 and Q2) were used in the third and fourth conditional discriminations. Moreover, A1 and B1 were presented together as comparisons, such that, if Q1 was presented as the sample, A1 was correct and B1 was incorrect; and if Q2 was presented as the sample, B1 was correct and A1 was incorrect. A2 and B2 were also presented as comparisons. When Q1 was presented, A2 was correct and when Q2 was presented B2 was correct. After training with these four single stimulus sample discriminations, participants were tested with compound PQ samples presented with A1, A2, B1, and B2 as comparisons. If common control were established by the PQ stimuli, a participant would select A1 when P1Q1 was presented, A2 when P2Q1 was presented, B1 when P1Q2 was presented, and B2 when P2Q2 was presented. Such common control by PQ samples occurred in 4 of 5 participants. In Experiment 2, 4 participants were given reverse training. They were first taught to select the A1, A2, B1, and B2 stimuli in response to the appropriate PQ combinations and then probed on the single stimulus sample discriminations. All 4 participants were successful on this probe. Experiments 3 and 4 investigated the effects of teaching additional conditional discriminations with novel stimuli on subsequent transfer from the single-sample discriminations to performance on the compound-sample conditional discrimination.     

The emergence of symmetry in a conditional discrimination task using different responses as propioceptive samples in pigeons

In Experiment 1, 10 pigeons were exposed to a successive symbolic matching-to-sample procedure in which the sample was generated by the pigeons' own behavior. Each trial began with both response keys illuminated white, one being the "correct" key and the other the "incorrect" key. The pigeons had no way of discriminating which key was correct and which incorrect, since these roles were assigned on a random basis with the same probability of 0.5 for each key. A fixed ratio of five responses was required on the correct key. However, each time the pigeon pecked the incorrect key, the correct key response counter reset. Five consecutive pecks on the correct key was the only way to end this component, and switch off both key lights. Two seconds later, these same keys were illuminated again, one green and the other red (comparison stimuli). Now, if the correct white key had been on the left, a peck at one color produced food, and if the correct white key had been on the right, a peck at the other color produced food. When the pigeons had learned this discrimination, they were exposed to several symmetry tests (simultaneous presentations of both keys illuminated the same color-i.e., both red or both green), in order to interchange the sample with the comparison stimuli. In Experiment 2, the importance of requiring discrimination between the samples and between the comparisons was analyzed. In Experiment 3, we compared the results of Experiment 1 with a slightly different experiment, which resulted in discrimination of key position, an exteroceptive stimulus. The results showed that symmetry emerged only when different responses were used as samples.     

Derived control by compound and single stimuli in a matching-to-sample task in children

A matching-to-sample procedure was used to investigate whether 9-year-old children would demonstrate the emergence of a derived compound-sample conditional discrimination following training in four interrelated single-sample conditional discriminations and vice versa, as adults did in previous studies. In Experiment 1, three out of three children demonstrated the emergence of a compound-sample conditional discrimination following training in four single-sample conditional discriminations. In Experiment 2, two out of three children acquired a compound-sample conditional discrimination and they demonstrated the emergence of four single-sample conditional discriminations; one of them did so only after being exposed to a remediation training and testing procedure. Training variables that facilitated discrimination emergence in both directions are discussed. In general, results showed that the sophisticated learning skills that are supposedly possessed by adults are not required to demonstrate the two types of derived control under study.     

Intercurrent and reinforced behavior under multiple spaced-responding schedules

Lever pressing in rats was reinforced with food under a multiple spaced-responding schedule. A lever, food cup, and drinking tube were mounted in a running wheel so that lever pressing, running, and licking could be recorded. Running and licking had no scheduled consequences. Lever pressing was reinforced under a multiple schedule with three spaced-responding components and an extinction component. Each component was associated with a different auditory stimulus. Spaced-responding components reinforced only lever presses terminating interresponse times equal to or greater than 10, 20, or 60 sec, respectively. Rates of lever pressing, reinforcement, and licking all decreased as schedule parameter increased. Efficiency of spaced responding, as measured by reinforcements per response, also decreased. Rate of wheel running either increased or increased and then decreased with increasing schedule parameter. Individual running rates differed substantially. Neither licking nor running rate correlated with individual differences in efficiency. Analysis of conditional probabilities among the several response classes showed that, as the schedule requirement increased, the probability of running after a lever press increased and the probability of licking after a lever press decreased. After reinforcement, one subject always pressed the lever next. In the other subjects, the conditional probability of lever pressing, given reinforcement, increased while the probability of licking, given reinforcement, decreased with increasing schedule requirement. Results are discussed in relation to the concepts of schedule-induced and mediating behavior.     

Contextual conditional discriminations

Three experiments used a discriminated operant procedure to study conditional discrimination learning in rats. The first experiment showed that rats were capable of learning a biconditional discrimination in which two contexts served as conditional cues signalling the reinforcement contingencies associated with two discriminative stimuli. The discrimination was learned equally well when one discriminative stimulus signalled food, the other its absence, and when one stimulus signalled food, the other extinction plus mild footshock.

In Experiment 2 it was shown that prior training on such a conditional discrimination enhanced the subsequent context specificity of simple conditioning relative to control groups of animals for whom the prior training had not been conditional. Experiment 3 showed that a reversal of the significance of one pair of discriminative stimuli produced no spontaneous reversal in performance to a second, target, pair.

The pattern of results is best accounted for by an analysis of contextual conditional discrimination learning in terms of stimulus configurations and offers no support for the notion that rats may learn a general conditional rule or set.     

DOES CONDITIONAL DISCRIMINATION LEARNING BY PIGEONS NECESSARILY INVOLVE HIERARCHICAL RELATIONSHIPS?

Four experiments demonstrate that when putative conditional and discriminative cues are presented simultaneously in the single reversal procedure, it is not possible to ascribe a uniquely conditional or uniquely discriminative function to either of the cues. In Experiment 1, pigeons were trained to respond to a blue key and not to a red key while the houselight was on; then in a different session they learned the reversal of this discrimination with the houselight off (single reversal). Separate groups were tested for color generalization with houselight conditions alternating in blocks of trials or for houselight intensity generalization with blue and red key colors alternating in blocks of trials. Both test procedures revealed a conditional relationship between houselight and key color conditions. Experiment 2 produced the same result following training in which the key colors were held constant across training sessions while the houselight and no houselight conditions varied within sessions. In Experiment 3, separate groups were trained with the two procedures but were tested with randomly ordered combinations of key colors and houselight intensities. The two groups yielded indistinguishable bidimensional generalization gradients with peaks at both previously reinforced stimulus combinations. In Experiment 4 the subjects were switched from one of these training procedures to the other with no decrement in their discriminative performance. We conclude that for successive discriminations between conditional- and discriminative-stimulus combinations, the notion of a hierarchical relation between conditional and discriminative stimuli must be extended to include a symmetrical relationship or the notion should be abandoned altogether.