Stimulus control topographies and tests of symmetry in pigeons

Pigeons were tested for symmetry after A-B training under conditions designed to avoid problems that may prevent its emergence, namely the change of stimulus location in testing relative to training and the lack of requisite discrimination training. In Experiment 1, samples appeared in two locations during baseline training to minimize the impact of stimulus location. Experiments 2 and 3 included multiple-location training along with additional identity and symbolic matching training, respectively, to explicitly train all of the simultaneous and successive stimulus discriminations required for testing. Experiment 4 provided reinforcement for symmetrical matching relations with some stimulus sets (with multiple-location training) prior to symmetry testing with different sets. In all experiments, pigeons showed no evidence of symmetry despite the fact that baseline (A-B) matching transferred to novel locations. Additional tests for reflexivity (Experiment 2) yielded similar outcomes. These results indicate that the change in stimulus location is not the sole reason that pigeons do not show symmetry and increase the plausibility of arguments that symmetry and other indexes of stimulus equivalence may be beyond the capabilities of the pigeon.     

Chimpanzee responding during matching to sample: control by exclusion

Three chimpanzees performed a computerized matching-to-sample task in which samples were photographs of items and comparison stimuli were geometric symbols called lexigrams. In Experiment 1, samples were either defined (i.e., they represented items that were associated already with a specific lexigram label by the chimpanzees) or undefined (i.e., they did not have an already learned association with a specific lexigram). On each trial, the foil (incorrect) comparison could be either a defined or an undefined lexigram. All 3 chimpanzees selected the correct comparison for undefined samples at a level significantly better than chance only when the foil comparison was defined. In Experiment 2, three comparisons were presented on each trial, and in Experiment 3, four comparisons were presented on each trial. For Experiments 2 and 3, the foil comparisons consisted of either defined or undefined comparisons or a mixture of both. For these two experiments, when the chimpanzees were presented with an undefined sample, they typically made selections of only undefined comparisons. These data indicate that the chimpanzees responded through use of exclusion. A final experiment, however, indicated that, despite the use of exclusion to complete trials with undefined samples correctly, the chimpanzees did not learn new associations between undefined samples and comparisons.     

Naming and categorization in young children: vocal tact training

In three experiments, 2- to 4-year-old children, following pretraining with everyday objects, were presented with arbitrary stimuli of differing shapes. In Experiment 1A, 9 subjects were trained one common tact response, "zag," to three of these and a second tact, "vek," to another three. In category match-to-sample Test 1, 4 subjects sorted accurately when required only to look at the sample before selecting from five comparisons. The remaining 5 subjects succeeded in Test 2, in which they were required to tact the sample before selecting comparisons. Experiment 1B showed, for 2 of these subjects, that tact training with 12 arbitrary stimuli established two six-member classes that were still intact 6 weeks later. In Experiment 2, 3 new subjects participated in a common tact training procedure that ensured that none of the exemplars from the same class were presented together prior to the test for three-member classes. Two subjects passed category Test 1 and the third passed Test 2. Tests showed subjects' listener behavior in response to hearing /zog/ and /vek/ to be in place. These experiments indicate that common naming is effective in establishing arbitrary stimulus classes and that category match-to-sample testing provides a robust measure of categorization.     

Equivalence relations and the reinforcement contingency

Where do equivalence relations come from? One possible answer is that they arise directly from the reinforcement contingency. That is to say, a reinforcement contingency produces two types of outcome: (a) 2‐, 3‐, 4‐, 5‐, or n‐term units of analysis that are known, respectively, as operant reinforcement, simple discrimination, conditional discrimination, second‐order conditional discrimination, and so on; and (b) equivalence relations that consist of ordered pairs of all positive elements that participate in the contingency. This conception of the origin of equivalence relations leads to a number of new and verifiable ways of conceptualizing equivalence relations and, more generally, the stimulus control of operant behavior. The theory is also capable of experimental disproof.     

Concurrent second-order schedules: some effects of variations in response number and duration

To examine the effects on concurrent performance of independent manipulations of response-unit duration and number, 6 hens were exposed to concurrent second-order schedules of reinforcement. Each first-order operant unit required completion of a fixed-ratio schedule within the time specified by a fixed-interval schedule, with one further response completing the fixed-interval schedule. The fixed-ratio and fixed-interval requirements comprising the first-order operant units were systematically and independently varied under three pairs of concurrent variable-interval schedules to produce differences in the first-order response and duration requirements (response and duration differentials). These manipulations produced consistent changes in response, time, and operant-unit biases. A 1:4 response differential biased the time and operant-unit measures towards the smaller fixed ratio, but to a degree less than the imposed response differential. The response-based biases favored the larger fixed ratio. Duration differentials of 4:1 and 8:1 biased the response and operant-unit measures towards the shorter fixed interval, again less than the imposed duration differential, but the time biases remained close to zero. Both sorts of differentials acted to bias operant-unit completions more systematically than the other measures, but undermatching to the differentials occurred. The undermatching appears to have arisen from a pattern of fix and sample (in which visits to the less preferred alternative involved only a single completed operant unit) under combinations of unequal operant-unit requirements and reinforcer rates. The response and time bias measures appeared to arise as by-products of the changes in operant-unit completions.     

Neural correlates of a default response in a delayed go/no-go task

Working memory, the ability to temporarily retain task-relevant information across a delay, is frequently investigated using delayed matching-to-sample (DMTS) or delayed Go/No-Go tasks (DGNG). In DMTS tasks, sample cues instruct the animal which type of response has to be executed at the end of a delay. Typically, performance decreases with increasing delay duration, indicating that working memory fades across a delay. However, no such performance decrease has been found when the sample cues exist of present vs. absent stimuli, suggesting that pigeons do not rely on working memory, but seem to respond by default in those trials. We trained 3 pigeons in a DGNG task and found a similar default response pattern: The diverging slopes of the retention functions on correct Go and No-Go trials suggested that pigeons by default omitted their response following No-Go stimuli, but actively retained task-relevant information across the delay for successful responses on Go trials. We conducted single-cell recordings in the avian nidopallium caudolaterale, a structure comparable to the mammalian prefrontal cortex. On Go trials, many neurons displayed sustained elevated activity during the delay preceding the response, replicating previous findings and suggesting that task-relevant information was neurally represented and maintained across the delay. However, the same units did not show enhanced delay activity preceding correct response suppressions in No-Go trials. This activation-inactivation pattern presumably constitutes a neural correlate of the default response strategy observed in the DGNG task.     

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.     

Applications of computer-based instruction: using specialized software to aid letter-name and letter-sound recognition

We evaluated computerized training and testing programs with children who were having difficulties learning prereading skills. The programs were derived from equivalence research and were written in authoring software designed for educators. After learning to match uppercase and lowercase printed letters to the corresponding letter names (Tasks 1 and 2), the children matched the letters to one another (Tasks 4 and 5). Then, after learning to match uppercase letters to sounds (Task 3), they also matched lowercase letters to sounds (Task 6) and matched printed to spoken words (Tasks 7 and 8). The results recommend equivalence-based protocols and user-friendly software in further development of prereading instruction.     

Signal-detection analyses of conditional discrimination and delayed matching-to-sample performance

Quantitative analyses of stimulus control and reinforcer control in conditional discriminations and delayed matching-to-sample procedures often encounter a problem; it is not clear how to analyze data when subjects have not made errors. The present article examines two common methods for overcoming this problem. Monte Carlo simulations of performance demonstrated that both methods introduced systematic deviations into the results, and that there were genuine risks of drawing misleading conclusions concerning behavioral models of signal detection and animal short-term memory.     

验证性因素分析:问卷题数及小样本应用策略

验证性因素分析在心理、教育等研究应用日广。本文引用三个模拟数据研究,提出一些在分析时的应用策略,包括用较多题目及强制同一因子的负荷相等。样本容量一般愈大愈好,但当资源等条件有限制时,上述两个技巧,可协助解决叠代收敛问题,并能更准确估计各重要参数。此外,一些方法如：每因子只得两题目、当样本只得约１００人时每因子用少於四题目、将题目合并以其平均数为指标,均可能导致不收敛、高标准误及偏差估计量等问题,不值得推荐。