Discrimination training facilitates pigeons' performance on one-trial-per-day delayed matching of key location

Six pigeons were tested on a one-trial-per-day variant of delayed matching of key location. In one condition, a trial began with the illumination of a pair of quasi-randomly selected pecking keys in a large 10-key test box. Pigeons' pecks to one key (the sample) were reinforced with 8-second access to grain on a variable-interval 30-second schedule, whereas pecks to the other key (the distractor) had no scheduled consequences. In the second condition, the nonreinforced distractor was not presented. In both conditions, subjects were removed from the apparatus after 15 minutes and placed in a holding cage. Subjects were subsequently replaced in the box after a delay (retention interval) of 30 seconds and were reexposed to the illuminated sample and distractor keys for 1 minute. If a pigeon made more pecks to the sample during this interval, the distractor was extinguished and subsequent pecks to the sample were reinforced on the previous schedule for an additional 15 minutes. If, however, a pigeon made more pecks to the distractor, both keys were extinguished and the subject was returned to its home cage. For all subjects, matching-to-sample accuracy was higher in the first condition. In a second experiment, the retention interval was increased to 5, 15, and 30 minutes, and then to 1, 2, 4, 8, 12, and 24 hours. Most subjects remembered the correct key location for up to 4 hours, and in one case, up to 24 hours, demonstrating a spatial-memory proficiency far better than previously reported in this species on delayed matching tasks. The results are discussed in terms of the commonly held distinction between working and reference memory.     

THE DEVELOPMENT AND GENERALIZATION OF DELAYED IMITATION1

An individual's behavior can be identified as imitative if it temporally follows the behavior of another individual and if its topography is controlled by the demonstrated behavior [Baer, Peterson, and Sherman (Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1967, 10 , 405–416)]. This definition takes into account both temporal and topographical characteristics of the behavior in question. More recent research in the area of imitation has interpreted the temporal component of the above definition differentially by limiting imitation to those topographically similar responses occurring within 3, 5, or 10 sec after a model's demonstration. Yet, Gewirtz and Stingle (Psychological Review, 1968, 75 , 375–397) pointed out that much of the imitation seen in young children is not of this immediate nature, but instead occurs sometime after a model's response. They further suggest that this type of imitative behavior can be characterized as a response class and is susceptible to development and modification as a function of consequences delivered to subjects contingent on this type of delayed responding. Four retarded children, three initially imitative and one nonimitative, were individually trained to imitate a number of motor responses in an immediate and a delayed fashion. Immediate imitation was defined as a response similar to a model's demonstration occurring within 5 sec after the model's demonstration; delayed imitation was defined as a response similar to a model's demonstration occurring more than 5 sec, but not more than 25 sec, after the model's demonstration. A reversal (ABAB) design was employed to examine the experimental development of a generalized delayed imitative repertoire. Untrained probe responses were demonstrated to subjects systematically through the ongoing training. Generalized immediate and delayed imitation were observed in each subject; this generalization was restricted to the type of imitation currently undergoing training. This development of a generalized imitation repertoire was observed in each subject. That is, these subjects imitated some responses that had never been specifically trained. More importantly, a training package consisting of prompting, fading, and consequences for delayed imitation functioned to develop generalized delayed imitation. These data exemplify a special case of generalization that was a function of the most recent training history of immediate or delayed imitation. The reversal design demonstrated that imitations of nontrained models were either delayed or immediate, depending upon which form of imitation was currently receiving training. Therefore, for each form of imitation trained, delayed or immediate, a corresponding response class was demonstrated. These data relate to data reported by Garcia, Baer, and Firestone (Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1971, 4 , 101–112). The association lies in the proposition that there are identifiable boundaries of generalized imitation and that these boundaries are functionally related to previous training histories.     

Associative interaction: joint control of key pecking by stimulus-reinforcer and response-reinforcer relationships

The joint control of rate of key pecking in pigeons by stimulus-reinforcer and response-reinforcer relationships was studied in the context of a two-component multiple schedule of reinforcement. Food presentation was always associated with one component and extinction with the other. The stimulus-reinforcer relationship was manipulated by varying the relative durations of the two components. In the food-presentation component, a fixed rate of reinforcement, independent of rate of responding, was generated by a schedule referred to as “T*”. One aspect of the response-reinforcer relationship, contiguity, was manipulated by varying the percentage of delayed reinforcers. With the multiple T* extinction schedule, stimulus-reinforcer and response-reinforcer relationships could be varied independently of one another. Rate of key pecking was sensitive to manipulations of both relationships. However, significant differential effects due to either the stimulus-reinforcer or response-reinforcer relationship were obtained only when the other relationship was weak: stimulus-reinforcer and response-reinforcer relationships interacted in the joint control of responding.     

Self-control: teaching tolerance for delay in impulsive children.

We investigated a procedure to increase the selection of larger, more delayed reinforcers (i.e., more advantageous in the long run) over smaller immediate reinforcers, in an effort to increase a key aspect of self-control in children. Six preschoolers, including one comparison subject, identified by their teachers as impulsive, were preassessed and found consistently to select smaller immediate reinforcers over larger, more delayed ones. The teaching procedure consisted of gradually increasing the durations of the delay interval over many sessions. The follow-up assessments showed that 5 of these children increased the proportion of their choices of the delayed reinforcers. Before training, indifference points ranged from 1.7 to 51.7 s; following treatment, points rose to a range of 37.5 to at least 90 s, with 3 children preferring the larger reinforcer at all delay intervals tested. The results demonstrated the feasibility of teaching young children to make choices more advantageous to them in the long run.     

FACILITATING TRANSITION TIMES WITH HANDICAPPED PRESCHOOL CHILDREN: A COMPARISON BETWEEN PEER-MEDIATED AND ANTECEDENT PROMPT PROCEDURES

We examined the effects of a peer-mediated versus an antecedent prompt condition on the rate of independent movement and appropriate behavior of handicapped preschool children during three classroom transition times. Using an alternating treatments design, results showed that each treatment condition yielded increases in target behaviors; however, the antecedent prompt condition was superior during all three transition settings. In addition, teacher prompts to these children were significantly reduced during the intervention conditions, indicating that the children were making these transitions more independently.     

Delay-interval illumination changes interfere with pigeon short-term memory.

Pigeons acquired a successive depayed matching-to-sample task at delay intervals ranging from 2.5 to 7 seconds. Test sessions were conducted during which delay-interval illumination conditions were changed from those illumination conditions that prevailed during the baselines. Compared to baseline delayed matching performance, changing delay-interval illumination disrupted matching. This disruption occurred whether the change in delay-interval illumination represented an increase or a decrease, relative to the baseline, and whether there was or was not a change in illumination during the test session. It was concluded that illumination per se introduced during delay intervals of delayed matching tasks does not interfere with pigeon short-term memory. Rather, a change in delay-interval illumination, relative to the baseline, appears to retroactively interfere in pigeon short-term memory.     

Short-term memory in the rhesus monkey: A behavioral analysis of delayed-response performance

This study obtained quantitative data on the bodily orientations of rhesus monkeys in a delayed-response task and determined whether such orientations mediate the correct response in a choice trial. The basic task was a two-key chain schedule with the key leading to food signaled in the initial component. During the subsequent delay interval, the signal was removed, but it was necessary that one of the keys be pressed to advance the schedule to the terminal choice component. The position of the key pressed thus indicated orientation during the delay interval. When the monkeys had free access to the left and right keys, they tended to press the key leading to food throughout the chain schedule components and received food on more than 85% of the trials, even when the delay was extended to 20 seconds. However, when orientation toward the food key was disrupted by forcing the monkeys to press an extraneous center key during the delay, choice performance deteriorated. Requiring the center key presses early, rather than late, in the delay component had a strong disruptive effect. The relation of the results to the mediating coding-response hypothesis is discussed.     

Intertrial sources of stimulus control and delayed matching-to-sample performance in humans

Two experiments compared delayed matching-to-sample (DMTS) accuracy under 2 procedures in adults with mental retardation. In the trial-unique procedure, every trial in a session contained different stimuli. Thus, comparison stimuli that were correct on one trial were never incorrect on other trials in that session (or vice versa). In the 2-sample DMTS procedure, the same 2 comparison stimuli were presented on each trial, and their function changed quasi-randomly across trials conditional upon the sample stimulus. Across 2 experiments, 7 of 8 subjects showed the highest overall accuracy under the trial-unique procedure, and no subject showed consistently higher accuracy under the 2-sample procedure. Negative, exponential decay functions fit to logit p values showed that this difference was due largely to the steeper delay-mediated decline in sample control for the 2-sample procedure. Stimulus-control analyses indicated that, under the 2-sample procedure, the selection of the comparison stimulus on Trial N was often controlled by the comparison stimulus selection on Trial N-1 rather than the Trial-N sample stimulus. This source of competing stimulus control is not present in trial-unique procedures. Experiment 2 manipulated intertrial interval duration. There was a small but consistent increase in accuracy as a function of intertrial interval duration under the 2-sample procedure, but not under the trial-unique procedure.     

Acquisition of cocaine self-administration with unsignaled delayed reinforcement in rhesus monkeys

Six experimentally naive rhesus monkeys produced 0.01 mg/kg/infusion cocaine by lever pressing under a tandem fixed-ratio 1 differential-reinforcement-of-other-behavior schedule. One lever press initiated an unsignaled 15- or 30-s delay culminating in cocaine delivery. Each press made during the delay reset the delay interval. With two exceptions, responding was acquired and maintained at higher rates than responding on a second (inoperative) lever. For the exceptions, a cancellation contingency was arranged in which each formerly inoperative-lever response reset the tandem schedule. This manipulation reduced presses on the inoperative lever. Subsequently, the consequences of responding on the two levers were reversed, and the monkeys again responded at higher rates on the operative lever. As a comparison, 3 additional experimentally naive monkeys received response-independent cocaine deliveries. Although lever pressing was observed, it extinguished and was subsequently reestablished under the tandem schedule. The results suggest that although response-reinforcer contiguity is not required for cocaine to acquire reinforcing functions, a response-reinforcer relation appears necessary.     

Reinforcer efficacy in a delayed matching-to-sample task.

Five domestic hens were exposed to a delayed matching-to-sample task. Conditions 1, 5, and 8 were variable-delay conditions in which five delays (0.25, 1, 2, 4, and 8 s) from the red or green sample to the presentation of the red and green comparison stimuli were presented a number of times during each session. In the fixed-delay condition (Condition 3), each delay was presented for 15 sessions under a Latin square design across birds. When improvements in accuracy across the variable-delay conditions are taken into account, the data were similar under both the variable and fixed delays. In Conditions 2, 4, 6, and 7 sample-reinforcer intervals were held at 8, 8, 4, and 2 s, respectively, while sample-choice intervals were varied within these during each session. With increasing sample-reinforcer interval, both initial discriminability (i.e., with sample-choice delay = 0) and rate of decrement in discriminability decreased. Although the former would be predicted if accuracy depends of the average sample-reinforcer interval, the latter would not. These data show that increasing the sample-choice interval had less effect on matching accuracy than increasing the sample-reinforcer interval did.