The effects of number of sample stimuli and number of choices in a detection task on measures of discriminability

Six pigeons were trained on a conditional discrimination task involving the discrimination of various intensities of yellow light. The research asked whether stimulus—response discriminability measures between any pair of stimuli would remain constant when a third or fourth sample and reinforced response were added. The numbers of different sample stimuli presented and different responses reinforced were two (Part 1), three (Parts 2 and 4), and four (Part 3). Across conditions within parts, the ratios of reinforcers obtainable for correct responses were varied over at least five levels. In Part 5, the numbers of sample stimuli and reinforced responses were varied among two, three, and four, and the reinforcer ratio between consecutive remaining samples was constant at 2:1. It was found that once a particular response had been reinforced, subjects continued to emit that response when the conditional stimulus for that response was no longer presented. Data analysis using a generalization-based detection model indicated that this model was able to describe the data effectively. Four findings were in accord with the theory. First, estimates of stimulus—response discriminability usually decreased as the arranged physical disparity between the sample stimuli decreased. Second, stimulus—response discriminability measures were independent of response—reinforcer discriminability measures, preserving parameter invariance between these measures. Third, stimulus—response discriminability measures for constant pairs of conditional stimuli did not change systematically as conditional stimulus—response alternatives were added. Fourth, log stimulus—response discriminability values between physically adjacent conditional stimuli summed to values that were not significantly different from estimates of the discriminability values for conditional stimuli that were spaced further apart.     

Psychophysics of remembering

We present a new model of remembering in the context of conditional discrimination. For procedures such as delayed matching to sample, the effect of the sample stimuli at the time of remembering is represented by a pair of Thurstonian (normal) distributions of effective stimulus values. The critical assumption of the model is that, based on prior experience, each effective stimulus value is associated with a ratio of reinforcers obtained for previous correct choices of the comparison stimuli. That ratio determines the choice that is made on the basis of the matching law. The standard deviations of the distributions are assumed to increase with increasing retention-interval duration, and the distance between their means is assumed to be a function of other factors that influence overall difficulty of the discrimination. It is a behavioral model in that choice is determined by its reinforcement history. The model predicts that the biasing effects of the reinforcer differential increase with decreasing discriminability and with increasing retention-interval duration. Data from several conditions using a delayed matching-to-sample procedure with pigeons support the predictions.     

An investigation of the differential-outcomes effect within sessions

The differential-outcomes effect is manifest as more accurate performance of a delayed conditional discrimination when alternative choice responses are followed by different reinforcers than when they are followed by the same reinforcer. In Experiment 1, a differential-outcomes effect was demonstrated within sessions by signaling the duration of food access for correct responses with stimuli appearing in conjunction with the sample stimuli. The delayed matching-to-sample performance of 5 pigeons was more accurate when green choice responses (matching a green sample) were followed by 3.5-s food access and red choice responses (matching a red sample) were followed by 0.5-s food access (different-outcome trials) than when the correct choice responses were both followed by 1.5-s reinforcers (same-outcome trials). In Experiment 2, the acquisition of this differential-outcomes effect was characterized by a progressive decrease in rate of forgetting on different-outcome trials and no change in rate of forgetting on same-outcome trials. In addition, accuracy at the shortest delay intervals for both different-outcome and same-outcome trials increased over acquisition, but to a greater extent for different-outcome trials. These data suggest that both memorial and attentional (time-dependent and time-independent) factors contribute to the differential-outcomes effect.     

A method for increasing empirical discriminability and eliminating top‐row preference in photo arrays

It is important to consider the two parameters of signal detection theory, discriminability and response bias, when evaluating eyewitness identification from simultaneous lineups. On the basis of the diagnostic feature‐detection hypothesis, we tested a method for increasing discriminability that encourages eyewitnesses to carefully rank each lineup member based on match to their memory for a perpetrator. This procedure increased empirical discriminability and also eliminated a response bias that is largely overlooked in the literature: Participants were biased to choose from the top row of the six‐pack (2 × 3) lineup commonly used in the United States. We argue that suspect position in the simultaneous lineup is an important variable to consider for researchers and the criminal justice system. We also encourage researchers to test the ranking procedure to determine if such a simple set of instructions could be utilized by police to help eyewitnesses correctly sort innocent versus guilty suspects.     

Local effects of delayed food

Five pigeons were trained on a procedure in which seven concurrent variable-interval schedules arranged seven different food-rate ratios in random sequence in each session. Each of these components lasted for 10 response-produced food deliveries, and components were separated by 10-s blackouts. We varied delays to food (signaled by blackout) between the two response alternatives in an experiment with three phases: In Phase 1, the delay on one alternative was 0 s, and the other was varied between 0 and 8 s; in Phase 2, both delays were equal and were varied from 0 to 4 s; in Phase 3, the two delays summed to 8 s, and each was varied from 1 to 7 s. The results showed that increasing delay affected local choice, measured by a pulse in preference, in the same way as decreasing magnitude, but we found also that increasing the delay at the other alternative increased local preference. This result casts doubt on the traditional view that a reinforcer strengthens a response depending only on the reinforcer's value discounted by any response-reinforcer delay. The results suggest that food guides, rather than strengthens, behavior.