On the failure and facilitation of conditional discrimination.

Pigeons acquired a conditional discrimination in an autoshaping procedure in which certain stimulus combinations (form plus color) were followed by food, whereas others were not followed by food. Although the discrimination normally was acquired quickly, it was completely prevented when the color elements of the stimulus compounds were presented during the intertrial intervals preceding the trials in which both stimulus elements were available. This failure of discrimination was then prevented by having the colors serve as houselights rather than being localized on the response key and by pretraining procedures in which the colors were utilized in simpler discriminations. The results suggest that stimulus salience plays a critical role in determining whether conditional discriminations will be acquired, as the effects of all of the different operations could be understood in terms of increasing or decreasing the salience of the color elements, above or below some threshold value.     

Naming in conditional discrimination and stimulus equivalence.

Using a matching-to-sample procedure, McIntire, Cleary, and Thompson (1987) taught monkeys the conditional relations A1-R1-A1-R1, A2-R2-A2-R2, A1-R1-B1-R1, A2-R2-B2-R2, B1-R1-C1-R1, and B2-R2-C2-R2, where the first and third terms in each relation refer to the sample and comparison stimuli, respectively, and the second and last terms refer to the emission of a distinctive pattern of responding. The subjects were then tested for the emergent relations A-C, C-A, B-A, C-B, and B-B, with the differential response produced by a given stimulus during training also emitted on test trials (e.g., A1-R1-C1-R1). The performances of both subjects were as accurate on the tested relations as they had been on the trained relations. The new relations were characterized as demonstrations of stimulus equivalence. However, the conditional discrimination literature shows that such training procedures generate control of comparison selection by the differential response patterns. Therefore, no emergent relations were demonstrated because all of the trained response-stimulus relations were preserved on test trials. This paper suggests that these procedures do not provide an appropriate analogy for the kind of emergent stimulus-stimulus relations exhibited by human subjects in equivalence studies and outlines a paradigm for assessing the relative influence of stimulus-stimulus and response-stimulus relations.     

Establishing auditory stimulus control over an eight-member equivalence class via conditional discrimination procedures

Two eight-member equivalence classes of visual stimuli were established during three phases of a training program. In Phase 1, two training arrangements were compared. In one, 3 subjects were taught on different trials to select from a single pair of comparison stimuli (A1, A2) in response to eight sample stimuli that were trained in pairs (B1, B2; C1, C2; D1, D2; E1, E2). In the second arrangement, subjects were taught to select from four pairs of comparisons (B1, B2; C1, C2; D3, D2; E2, E2) in response to two samples (A1, A2). Training with the single pair of comparison stimuli resulted in the development of equivalence relations (B1C1, B2C2, D1B1, D2B2, B1E1, B2E2, C1D1, C2D2, C1E1, C2E2, D1E1, D2E2, and their reciprocals) between the sample stimuli without direct training of these relations. In the other training arrangement, these relations among the comparison stimuli developed in the performance of 1 subject only. In Phase 2, three new pairs of stimuli (F1, F2; G1, G2; H1, H2) were substituted for three of the original pairs (B1, B2; C1, C2; D1, D2) and the training arrangements for the groups were reversed. Following training, the performances that showed equivalence relations on the probes in the first phase also showed equivalence relations in the second phase. If such relations did not develop in the first phase, they did not do so in the second phase. In Phase 3, relations between stimuli across the two previous phases (e.g., B1F1, B2F2, B1G1, B2H2, C1F1, etc.) were investigated. The 4 subjects whose performances showed the development of these relations were taught to select one stimulus from each class (E1 and E2) in response to a verbal label (I1 and I2) and then were tested to see if the verbal label controlled responding to the remaining members of the class (e.g., I1A1, I2A2, I1B1, I2B2, etc.). For 3 subjects, this generalized control occurred; for the 4th, generalization occurred only after verbal training with a second pair of visual stimuli (F1 and F2). In retests several months later, these auditory-visual relations were found to be intact or, if not, were recovered without direct training.     

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.     

Reflections on stimulus control

The topic of stimulus control is too broad and complex to be traceable here. It would probably take a two-semester course to cover just the highlights of that field's evolution. The more restricted topic of equivalence relations has itself become so broad that even an introductory summary requires more time than we have available. An examination of relations between equivalence and the more general topic of stimulus control, however, may reveal characteristics of both the larger and the more limited field that have not been generally discussed. Consideration of these features may in turn foster future developments within each area. I speak, of course, about aspects of stimulus control that my own experiences have made salient to me; others would surely emphasize different characteristics of the field. It is my hope that cooperative interactions among researchers and theorists who approach stimulus control from different directions will become more common than is currently typical.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Conditional discrimination after errorless and trial-and-error training.

Children were trained on a visual discrimination by stimulus shaping, stimulus fading, or trial-and-error. Those who did not acquire the conditional discrimination received a second, different training. More children initially trained by stimulus shaping acquired the conditional discrimination than did those initially trained with stimulus fading or trial-and-error. After a history of fading or trial-and-error training, children were less likely to acquire the conditional discrimination even after the more successful procedure of shaping was later used.     

Effects of differences between stimuli, responses, and reinforcer rates on conditional discrimination performance

In a discrete-trial conditional discrimination procedure, 4 pigeons obtained food reinforcers by pecking a key with a short latency on trials signaled by one stimulus and by pecking the same key with a long latency on trials signaled by a second stimulus. The physical difference between the two stimuli and the temporal separation between the latency values required for reinforcement were varied factorially over four sets of conditions, and the ratio of reinforcer rates for short and long latencies was varied within each set of conditions. Stimulus discrimination varied directly with both stimulus and response differences and was unaffected by the reinforcer ratio. Sensitivity to reinforcement, estimated by generalized-matching-law fits to the data within each set of conditions, varied directly with the response difference but inversely with the stimulus difference arranged between sets of conditions. Because variations in stimulus differences, response differences, and reinforcer differences did not have equivalent effects, these findings question the functional equivalence of the three terms of the discriminated operant: antecedent stimuli, behavior, and consequences.     

A test of symmetry and transitivity in the conditional discrimination performances of pigeons

In a matching-to-sample context, pigeons were taught two conditional discriminations according to one of three equivalence paradigms: train if A, then select B and if B, then select C; train if B, then A and if B, then C; or train if A, then B and if C, then B. Test trials without reinforcement revealed that the conditional relations did not satisfy the symmetrical and transitive properties of an equivalence relation. Apparently, only specific if... then relations were learned. Contrary to Kendall's (1983) findings, and probably as a consequence of procedural differences, none of the pigeons in the present experiment were observed to emit mediating behavior during the transitivity probe trials. The absence of symmetry and transitivity may be related to the individual stimuli not being reflexive. Behavioral techniques other than the commonly used matching-to-sample technique might better succeed in avoiding unintended stimulus control in the study of the formation of stimulus classes.     

Factors affecting conditional discrimination learning by pigeons

In Experiment 1 (within subjects) and Experiment 2 (between subjects) it was shown that the sequential training of pigeons on a color discrimination and then on its reversal, each in a different floor-tilt/texture context, failed to produce conditional control of discriminative performance by those contexts. Daily alternation between the two problems (with correlated contexts) was successful, however. In each of these experiments conditional control was better reflected in generalization test performance in extinction than during sessions of training with reinforcement.     

Conditional discrimination and equivalence relations: A theoretical analysis of control by negative stimuli

A detailed analysis is presented of the ways in which control by the negative stimulus in two-comparison conditional discriminations may be expected to affect the outcome of tests for the properties of equivalence relations. Control by the negative stimulus should produce the following results: (a) no observable effect on symmetry tests; (b) reflexivity test results should look like “oddity” rather than “identity”; and (c) transitivity tests that involve an odd number of nodes should yield results that are 100% opposite to tests that involve an even number of nodes. The analysis also considers the effects of variation in the type of comparison-stimulus control between and within baseline conditional discriminations. Methods are suggested for experimentally regulating the type of control, and for verifying the predictions that the analysis generates. If suggested experiments continue to support the analysis, investigators who use two-comparison conditional discriminations to study equivalence relations will either have to control explicitly whether the positive or the negative comparison governs their subjects' choices, or they will have to abandon two comparisons and use three or more comparisons instead.     

The merger and development of equivalence classes by unreinforced conditional selection of comparison stimuli

Three experiments assessed the likelihood that subjects with histories of equivalence class development would respond conditionally on new discriminations in the absence of differential consequences for responses. In the first two experiments, two groups of subjects with different experimental histories, but whose performances showed four equivalence classes, responded on trials without explicit reinforcement involving samples from two of the classes and comparisons from the other two classes, in a two-choice matching-to-sample format. Subjects consistently selected a particular comparison in the presence of a particular sample. Subsequent tests showed the emergence of equivalence relations between stimuli from classes linked by the unreinforced conditional selections. Subsequently, in Experiment II, the subjects' responses in the conditional selection trials were reinforced if the selection was reversed from that made previously. Although reversed selection was maintained, 2 of the 3 subjects continued to perform on equivalence relation trials according to their original unreinforced selections. In the third experiment, these 2 subjects responded on a series of conditional discriminations involving three new pairs of sample stimuli and one new pair of comparison stimuli. No explicit reinforcement followed responses on any trial in this experiment. Subsequent tests for equivalence between sample stimuli revealed the development of two equivalence classes.     

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.     

Context specificity of conditioned-reinforcement effects on discrimination acquisition

Pigeons were trained on a series of reversals of a simultaneous form discrimination in which the trial outcomes were separated from the choice responses by an 8-s delay interval. Different conditions were defined by the stimuli occurring during the two halves of the delay interval. Discrimination learning was greatly facilitated by having differential stimuli during the delay following correct versus incorrect choices. When the differential stimuli appeared only at the midpoint of the delay, some facilitation occurred relative to when no different stimuli occurred, but there was substantially less facilitation than when the differential stimuli occurred immediately contingent on choice. A reversed-stimulus condition, in which the stimulus at the onset of the delay following a correct choice was the same as that during the last segment of the delay following an incorrect choice, and the stimulus at the onset of the delay following an incorrect choice was the same as that preceding food during the last segment of the delay following a correct choice, also facilitated discrimination learning relative to the nondifferential stimulus conditions.     

Conditional discrimination and equivalence relations: Control by negative stimuli

Three adult subjects were taught the following two-sample, two-comparison conditional discriminations (each sample is shown with its positive and negative comparison, in that order): A1-B1B2, A2-B2B1; B1-C1C2, B2-C2C1; and C1-D1D2, C2-D2D1. A teaching procedure was designed to encourage control by negative comparisons. Subjects were then tested for emergent performances that would indicate whether the baseline conditional discriminations were reflexive, symmetric, and transitive. The tests documented the emergence of two classes of equivalent stimuli: A1, B2, C1, D2 and A2, B1, C2, D1. These were the classes to be expected if the negative comparisons were the controlling comparisons in the baseline conditional discriminations. The negative comparisons, however, were not the comparisons that subjects were recorded as having chosen in the baseline conditional discriminations. Differential test results confirmed predictions arising from a stimulus-control analysis: In reflexivity tests (AA, BB, CC, DD), subjects chose comparisons that differed from the sample; one-node transitivity (AC, BD) and "equivalence" (CA, DB) tests also yielded results that were the opposite of those to be expected from control by positive comparisons; symmetry tests (BA, CB, DC), two-node transitivity (AD) tests, and two-node "equivalence" (DA) tests yielded results that were to be expected from control by either positive or negative comparisons.