Acquired equivalences between auditory stimuli in dolphins (Tursiops truncatus)

This study investigated whether dolphins would show evidence of equivalence class formation between auditory stimuli. Bottlenose dolphins were trained to press one or other of two response levers depending on which one of four auditory stimuli had been previously presented. Once they had learned the initial discriminations, the stimulus-lever contingencies was repeatedly reversed. Within any given session, however, pressing of one lever always led to reward with one set of two tones and pressing the other lever led to non-reward with an alternative set of two tones. After sufficient experience with this response reversal procedure, the dolphins spontaneously chose the same levers they had first learned to be correct with one of the across-set stimulus pairs when later in the session they were presented with the other of the across-set stimulus pairs. They thus demonstrated that they had associated the tones belonging to the two sets within two separate functional classes. It is discussed why the dolphins succeeded with auditory stimuli when they had previously failed in a similar task with visual stimuli. Received: 7 December 1999 / Accepted after revision: 23 June 2000     

The role of physical identity of the sample and correct comparison stimulus in matching-to-sample paradigms

Pigeons were trained in a higher-order conditional discrimination paradigm to assess the role of physical identity in a within-subjects design. A line orientation which was super-imposed on all response keys signalled whether a response to the matching color or a response to the nonmatching color was correct. Following training under this paradigm, stimulus control gradients were obtained by varying the angularity of the lines. Orderly gradients of stimulus control were obtained and no bias toward or away from the physically identical comparison stimulus was observed. The data were interpreted as indicating that the pigeons acquired a discrimination for each specific stimulus configuration or a set of specific stimulus-response chains based on compound stimuli in which physical identity played no special role.     

Transfer of relational stimulus control in conditional discriminations.

Four adults were trained, using instructions and a matching-to-sample procedure, to select Stimulus B1 in the presence of Stimulus A1, B2 in the presence of A2, and B3 in the presence of A3 (the AB relations). Analogous PQ relations were trained. Afterwards, one stimulus in Set A and another stimulus in Set B appeared together as a sample, and novel Stimuli X1 and X2 were the comparisons. Responses to X1 were reinforced if the two stimuli in the sample had been related in the previous training (e.g., A1 and B1), and responses to X2 were reinforced if the two samples had not been related (e.g., A1 and B2). These were the ABX relations. In a test in which a stimulus of Set P and another of Set Q were the samples and X1 and X2 were the comparisons, 2 subjects selected X1 when the samples were P1 and Q1, P2 and Q2, and P3 and Q3, and selected X2 in the presence of the other six sample combinations (P1Q2, P1Q3, P2Q1, P2Q3, P3Q1, and P3Q2). Another subject showed the same responding after additional training. In the second experiment, 3 adults and an 11-year-old child were trained on AB, PQ, and ABX relations, and they showed the symmetrical relations BA and QP upon testing. Then all 4 of these subjects responded accurately to the PQX test. Results of Experiments 1 and 2 showed novel, consistent comparison selection based on the previously established relation between the two stimuli in the sample. In a third experiment, 3 of the subjects who had shown PQX relations were trained on EFX relations, with pairs of E and F stimuli as samples and X stimuli as comparisons. When the EF relations were tested, all 3 subjects consistently selected F1 in the presence of E1, F2 in the presence of E2, and F3 in the presence of E3 from the first trial. The results of Experiment 3 showed novel stimulus relations after training with a more complex conditional discrimination format.     

Calibration of sensory and cognitive judgments: Two different accounts

The purpose of this study was to test predictions of two recent theories of realism of confidence. Ecological approaches to realism of confidence in one's general knowledge (Gigerenzer et al. , 1991; Juslin, in press a ; Björkman, in press) predict good calibration or, in the case of poor cognitive adjustment, overconfidence, within the cognitive domain. The subjective distance theory of confidence in sensory discriminations (Björkman et al. , 1992) predicts a pervasive underconfidence bias for sensory discriminations. Empirical data are reported showing that: (a) Calibration for sensory judgments is considerably poorer than calibration for well adapted cognitive judgements, a difference that can be entirely traced to underconfidence in the sensory domain. (b) While an initial overconfidence bias in the cognitive domain is removed by outcome feedback, the bias observed in sensory discriminations is unaffected even by a prolonged feedback session. It is suggested that the nature of confidence in sensory discriminations is different from the nature of confidence in cognitive judgments.     

Effects of stimulus presentation order during auditory–visual conditional discrimination training for children with autism spectrum disorder

Children with autism spectrum disorder are typically taught conditional discriminations using a match‐to‐sample arrangement. Consideration should be given to the temporal order in which antecedent stimuli (the sample and comparison stimuli) are presented during match‐to‐sample trials, as various arrangements have been used in the extant literature. The purpose of the current study was to compare the effects of four stimulus presentation orders on the acquisition of auditory–visual conditional discriminations. The study included participants from a clinically relevant population (three children with autism spectrum disorder), employed clinically relevant teaching procedures, and included two presentation formats not included in previous comparison evaluations (simultaneous and sample‐first with re‐presentation conditions). Results were found to be learner‐specific; that is, a different stimulus presentation format was most efficient for each participant. We provide suggestions to evaluate stimulus control topographies and enhance experimental control in match‐to‐sample arrangements.     

Transfer of specific contextual functions to novel conditional discriminations

Three adolescents and 4 children participated in studies designed to examine contextually controlled conditional discrimination performance. In Study 1, participants selected Comparison B1 in the presence one stimulus (A1) and Comparison B2 in the presence of another stimulus (A2) using a matching-to-sample procedure. Next, contextual stimuli X1 or X2 were presented, such that in the presence of X1, selection of B1 given A1 and selection of B2 given A2 were reinforced; and in the presence of X2, selection of B2 given A1 and selection of B1 given A2 were reinforced. Then, new conditional discriminations were taught with Stimuli E and F. When the contextual Stimuli X1 and X2 were presented, participants selected the same comparisons as previously established in the EF relations in the presence of X1, but the opposite comparison as in the EF relations in the presence of X2. The results then were replicated with new Stimuli G and H. In Study 2, a new conditional discrimination, CD, was taught. Then, four combinations of two-element samples--C1 and D1, C2 and D2, C1 and D2, or C2 and D1--were presented with X1 and X2 as comparisons. Five of 6 participants selected X1 in the presence of C1 and D1 or C2 and D2, and selected X2 in the presence of C1 and D2 or C2 and D1. Finally, in Study 3, two new discriminations IJ and JK were taught. Then, the transitive IK relations were tested with X1 and X2 as contextual stimuli. The 4 participants selected K1 in the presence of I1 and K2 in the presence of I2 when the contextual stimulus was X1--demonstrating class formation--and selected the other comparisons when the contextual stimulus was X2. These results suggest that the contextual control functions of X1 and X2 transferred even to relations that had not been directly taught. These results extend those demonstrating generalized contextual control by showing transfer of functions of the contextual stimuli in transitivity tests and when the former contextual stimuli were presented as comparisons.