CONDITIONAL DISCRIMINATION VS. MATCHING TO SAMPLE: AN EXPANSION OF THE TESTING PARADIGM

A subject's performance under a conditional-discrimination procedure defines conditional relations between stimuli: “If A1, then B1; if A2, then B2.” The procedure may also generate matching to sample. If so, the stimuli will be related not only by conditionality, but by equivalence: A1 and B1 will become equivalent members of one stimulus class, A2 and B2 of another. One paradigm for testing whether a conditional-discrimination procedure has generated equivalence relations uses three sets of stimuli, A, B, and C, three stimuli per set. Subjects learn to select Set-B and Set-C comparisons conditionally upon Set-A samples. Having been explicitly taught six sample-comparison relations, A1B1, A1C1, A2B2, A2C2, A3B3, and A3C3, subjects prove immediately capable of matching the B- and C-stimuli; six new relations emerge (B1C1, B2C2, B3C3, C1B1, C2B2, C3B3). The 12 stimulus relations, six taught and six emergent, define the existence of three three-member stimulus classes, A1B1C1, A2B2C2, and A3B3C3. This paradigm was expanded by introducing three more stimuli (Set D), and teaching eight children not only the AB and AC relations but DC relations also—selecting Set-C comparisons conditionally upon Set-D samples. Six of the children proved immediately capable of matching the B- and D-stimuli to each other. By selecting appropriate Set-B comparisons conditionally upon Set-D samples, and Set-D comparisons conditionally upon Set-B samples, they demonstrated the existence of three four-member stimulus classes, A1B1C1D1, A2B2C2D2, and A3B3C3D3. These larger classes were confirmed by the subjects' success with the prerequisite lower-level conditional relations; they were also able to select Set-D comparisons conditionally upon samples from Sets A and C, and to do the BC and CB matching that defined the original three-member classes. Adding the three DC relations therefore generated 12 more, three each in BD, DB, AD, and CD. Enlarging each class by one member brought about a disproportionate increase in the number of emergent relations. Ancillary oral naming tests suggested that the subject's application of the same name to each stimulus was neither necessary nor sufficient to establish classes of equivalent stimuli.     

Sensory superstition on multiple interval schedules.

Pigeons were exposed to multiple schedules in which an irregular repeating sequence of five stimulus components was correlated with the same reinforcement schedule throughout. Stable, idiosyncratic, response-rate differences developed across components. Components were rank-ordered by response rate; an approximately linear relation was found between rank order and the deviation of mean response rate from the overall mean rate. Nonzero slopes of this line were found for multiple fixed-interval and variable-time schedules and for multiple variable-interval schedules both when number of reinforcements was the same in all components and when it varied. The steepest function slopes were found in the variable schedules with relatively long interfood intervals and relatively short component durations. When just one stimulus was correlated with all components of a multiple variable-interval schedule, the slope of the line was close to zero. The results suggest that food-rate differences may be induced initially by different reactions to the stimuli and subsequently maintained by food.     

Stimulus discriminability in free-operant and discrete-trial detection procedures.

Six pigeons were trained to discriminate different light intensities in four experimental procedures. Experiment 1 compared stimulus discriminability in a yes-no signal-detection task with discriminability measures obtained from two free-operant procedures. Discriminability estimates were significantly lower in the detection procedure. Experiment 2 showed this lowered discriminability to be a function of the delay between stimulus presentation and the availability of the choice-response keys in the standard detection task. In addition, reinforcement sensitivity was lowest when correct choice responses were intermittently, rather than continuously, reinforced.     

An experimental analysis of the effects of d-amphetamine and cocaine on the acquisition and performance of response chains in monkeys.

In one component of a multiple schedule of food presentation, monkeys acquired a different four-response chain each session by responding sequentially on three keys in the presence of four geometric forms (learning). In the other component, the four-response chain was the same each session (performance). Both d-amphetamine and cocaine, at the higher doses, disrupted the behavior in the learning component; the overall response rate decreased, the overall accuracy was impaired (i.e., percent errors increased), and there was less within-session error reduction. The performance component was generally less sensitive than the learning component to the disruptive effects of both drugs on rate and accuracy. After pre-feeding or during an extended session, the response rate decreased in both components, but accuracy was generally unaffected. When the four discriminative stimuli in both components were removed, the behavior was disrupted to a greater extent in the performance component. The disruptive effects of both drugs on behavior in the learning component were attenuated when the drugs were administered during the session after the response chain had been acquired. It was concluded that the greater sensitivity of the learning component to disruptive drug effects is related to the relatively weak stimulus control and/or the lower rate of reinforcement associated with that component.     

Effects of cocaine and d-amphetamine on the repeated acquisition and performance of conditional discriminations.

The acute and chronic effects of cocaine and d-amphetamine on food-reinforced behavior were investigated in pigeons responding on a two-component multiple schedule. In one component, the behavioral task consisted of the same chain of conditional discriminations each session (performance). In the other component, the chain of conditional discriminations was changed from session to session (learning). In comparison to control sessions, both acute cocaine and d-amphetamine increased errors in each component of the multiple schedule. Responding in the learning component, however, was generally disrupted at lower doses than those that affected responding in the performance component. At high doses, both drugs produced pauses in responding in each component in three of the four subjects. Pausing engendered by d-amphetamine was approximately twice as long as that under cocaine. Upon chronic administration, both the pausing and error-increasing effects of each drug diminished. Drug-induced changes in timeout responding, however, did not decrease during chronic administration. Redeterminations of the d-amphetamine dose-effect curves following chronic cocaine administration suggested the existence of cross-tolerance between cocaine and d-amphetamine. Both the acute and chronic data are consistent with the view that conditions of stimulus control may modulate the behavioral effects of drugs.     

Reinforcement magnitude and the inhibiting effect of reinforcement

In a two-key concurrent variable-interval schedule (using pigeons), if the reinforcement frequency for one response is held constant while that for the other is increased, the rate of response on the constant key decreases. The immediate reinforcement for key pecking can usually be conceptualized as the change from a condition in which the key light is on and the food hopper light is off to one in which the key light is off and the hopper light is on. The prechange condition is associated with a delay to food of one-half the average interreinforcement interval in effect during this condition. The postchange condition is associated with a delay to food of about .5 seconds. The programming of additional reinforcement results in a decrease in the delay to food associated with the prechange stimulus condition, and thus a decrease in the value of the improvement that results from the change. This would appear to be analogous to a decrease in the amount of reinforcement, and thus sufficient explanation for the decrease in the rate of the response.     

EFFECTS OF DIRECT,INTERMITTENT, AND VICARIOUS REINFORCEMENT PROCEDURES ON THE DEVELOPMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF INSTRUCTION-FOLLOWING BEHAVIORS IN A GROUP OF YOUNG CHILDREN1

A group of young children (mean age: 2.5 yr) were instructed to follow different requests by a teacher in a day-care setting. Experiment I verified that mean group instruction following was low (10%) despite the opportunity for “observational learning”, i.e., the group of 12 children could watch a nonreinforced adult comply with the teacher's request. In Experiment II, when positive consequences were provided contingent on the adult model's behavior, mean group instruction following was relatively unaffected (14%). When direct reinforcement was given to four peer models, each for several sessions, the individual performances of three of the four peer models was elevated (from 50% to 80%); however, the mean performance of the remaining nonreinforced children (N = 7) was only moderately affected (21%). When reinforcement contingencies were again changed, so that each group member was provided direct, but intermittent reinforcement, mean group performance increased substantially to levels of over 70%. Once instruction following was high, presentation of reinforcement only to one peer model sufficed to maintain performance whereas earlier, this same vicarious reinforcement procedure had failed to establish group compliance. The maintenance of instruction-following behavior when reinforcement was applied solely to one child was interpreted mainly in terms of a high resistance to extinction following a history of intermittent reinforcement rather than a “vicarious”- or “self”-reinforcement mechanism. Finally, removal and re-introduction of group intermittent reinforcement, respectively, lowered performance (to levels of 40%) and elevated (to levels of 65%) the group's performance.     

Control of responding by location of auditory stimuli: adjacency of sound and response.

Four rhesus monkeys were trained to respond on one key when a one-second noise burst was presented through one speaker and to respond on a second key when the noise burst was presented through a second speaker. The acquisition of stimulus control was studied under three conditions, in each of which the relationship between the sound source and the response-key positions varied: an adjacent condition in which the noise burst was presented through the key and a response on this key was reinforced; a reversed-adjacent condition in which the noise burst was presented through one key and responding on the other key was reinforced: and a nonadiacent condition in which responding on the key nearer the sound was reinforced. Under adjacent conditions, stimulus control developed within one or two sessions. Under reversed and nonadjacent conditions, 10 sessions were required for the development of control. The asymptote of correct responding was the same under each condition in all animals.     

Positive contrast, negative induction, and inhibitory stimulus control in the rat

In Experiment I, 24 rats were trained on a multiple variable-interval variable-interval schedule with a doorlight and white noise serving as component cues. Two groups were then shifted to a multiple extinction variable-interval schedule, and a third group was maintained on the multiple variable-interval variable-interval schedule. The multiple extinction variable-interval condition produced positive contrast when either the light or noise signalled extinction, and both of these cues acquired inhibitory stimulus control as measured by a combined cue test. In Experiment II, the multiple variable-interval variable-interval condition was shifted to multiple extinction variable-interval for one group, to multiple variable-time variable-interval for a second group, and was unchanged for the third group. The two experimental conditions produced identical patterns of response-rate reduction in the altered component, but the multiple extinction variable-interval condition produced positive contrast, whereas the multiple variable-time variable-interval condition did not. Subsequent combined cue and resistance to reinforcement tests revealed that the cue signalling extinction acquired stronger inhibitory stimulus control than the cue signalling variable time.     

Signalled free-operant avoidance of shock by pigeons pecking a key

Two pigeons were trained to peck a key under a free-operant avoidance schedule. Then, changes in key color signalled the beginning (safe period) and the end (warning period) of the response-shock interval, with a response required to change the key color. Finally, a change in key color signalled the warning period and either a response or a shock reinstated the safe stimulus. During signalled avoidance, response rate was higher during the warning stimulus than during the safe stimulus. More responding tended to occur in the warning stimulus when it was terminated by either a response or a shock than by only a response. In either procedure, response latency during the warning stimulus was a function of the duration of the warning stimulus. In general, response and shock rate were higher during unsignalled than during signalled avoidance. When the warning stimulus was brief, the results were similar to those of unsignalled avoidance. These results confirm previous findings with pigeons, are in general agreement with data provided by other species in studies of signalled avoidance, and thereby indicate the transituationality of the key-pecking operant.