Area-matching strategies used by young children

Across three studies, conditions were varied under which children aged 4–5 years matched the area of a rectangle with a given width (or height) to that of a square. In the first study, subjects observed the rectangle being changed in height from trial to trial and had access to their immediately preceding response. Under these conditions, rectangle width (the dimension under subject control) was a linear decreasing function of rectangle height. This function was interpreted as evidence for a hypothetical addition/subtraction strategy for maintaining equality in area between the comparison rectangle and the standard square. As a test of this hypothesis, in a second experiment the subjects were denied access to their immediately previous response, and in a third study they were also unable to observe the rectangle as it was altered by the experimenter between trials. The purpose of these changes was to remove the information necessary for readily implementing an addition/subtraction strategy. In both studies, area matches seemed to be based on a side-matching strategy, such that subjects matched one dimension of the rectangle to one side of the standard square. It was suggested that young children use different cues or strategies with different variants of the matching task because they do not possess a fixed, specific concept of area.     

Binocular summation in detection of contrast flashes

We studied monocular and binocular detection of foveal flashes of different contrast. When background contours were binocularly fused, detectability (d’) of binocular test flashes was, on the average, twice the detectability of monocularly presented flashes. The precise amount of binocular advantage varied with test contrast: binocular improvement exceeded full summation for low test contrast, but fell below full summation at higher test contrasts. In the absence of contours in one eye, background luminances are not expected to sum, yet binocular detection is an average of 41.5% better than monocular detection. This indicates a difference in the functional organization of the fused binocular channel and a monocular channel.     

Second-order schedules: brief shock at the completion of each component

Pigeons worked on second-order schedules in which completion of fixed-interval component schedules was reinforced with food according to a variable-interval schedule of reinforcement. The completion of each fixed-interval component resulted in the presentation of a brief electric shock. In one condition (shock-paired), the completion of every fixed-interval component, including those that ended in food, resulted in the shock. In another condition (shock-nonpaired), completion resulted in shock except for those components that ended in food. Shock presentations resulted in a positively accelerated rate within fixed-interval components. This patterning within components was similar whether the shock was intermittently paired with food or not. Response rates tended to decrease as shock intensity increased. The characteristic fixed-interval response pattern within components did not occur when shock presentations were omitted at the end of each component (tandem schedule). When shocks were scheduled but food was no longer presented (extinction) response rates declined to a near-zero level. The performance under shock conditions is similar to that in other studies in which visual and auditory stimuli are presented at the completion of component schedules.     

Yoked variable-ratio and variable-interval responding in pigeons

Pigeons' key pecks were maintained by variable-ratio or variable-interval schedules of food reinforcement. For pairs of pigeons in one group, variable-ratio reinforcement was arranged for one pigeon's pecks; for the second pigeon, reinforcement was arranged according to a variable-interval schedule yoked to the interreinforcement times produced by the first pigeon. For pairs of pigeons in another group, variable-interval reinforcement was arranged for one pigeon's pecks; for the second pigeon, reinforcement was arranged according to a variable-ratio schedule yoked to the interreinforcement responses produced by the first pigeon. For each pair, the yoking procedure was maintained for four or five consecutive sessions of 50 reinforcements each. In more than three-quarters of the pairs, variable-ratio response rates were higher than variable-interval rates within two sessions; in all cases, the rate difference developed within four sessions.