Naming and categorization in young children: II. Listener behavior training

Following pretraining with everyday objects, 1- to 4-year-old children received listener training with three pairs of arbitrary stimuli of differing shapes. For each pair, 9 children were trained to select one stimulus in response to the spoken word /zog/ and the other to the spoken word /vek/. Next, in the look-at-sample category match-to-sample test, none categorized the six stimuli correctly when asked to look at the sample before selecting from five comparisons. Seven of these children failed a subsequent test of corresponding speaker behavior (tact test); following tact training, 5 of them passed either a repeat of the look-at-sample category test (2 subjects) or an alternative category test (3 subjects) in which they were required to tact the sample before selecting comparisons. The remaining 2 failed both category tests. Of the 2 who passed the tact test, 1 passed the tact-sample category test; the other failed to complete category testing. Two children were next given a second stimulus set. One passed the look-at-sample category test and the tact test; the other failed both tests but passed the tact-sample category test after tact training. The results show that 1- to 4-year-old children may learn listener behavior without corresponding speaker behavior. The results also show that common listener behavior is not sufficient to establish arbitrary stimulus classes, and they are consistent with the proposition that naming may be necessary for categorization of such stimuli.     

A day of great illumination: B. F. Skinner's discovery of shaping

Despite the seminal studies of response differentiation by the method of successive approximation detailed in chapter 8 of The Behavior of Organisms (1938), B. F. Skinner never actually shaped an operant response by hand until a memorable incident of startling serendipity on the top floor of a flour mill in Minneapolis in 1943. That occasion appears to have been a genuine eureka experience for Skinner, causing him to appreciate as never before the significance of reinforcement mediated by biological connections with the animate social environment, as opposed to purely mechanical connections with the inanimate physical environment. This insight stimulated him to coin a new term (shaping), and also led directly to a shift in his perspective on verbal behavior from an emphasis on antecedents and molecular topographical details to an emphasis on consequences and more molar, functional properties in which the social dyad inherent to the shaping process became the definitive property of verbal behavior. Moreover, the insight seems to have emboldened Skinner to explore the greater implications of his behaviorism for human behavior writ large, an enterprise that characterized the bulk of his post-World War II scholarship.     

An architect of the golden years

William H. Morse has played a major role in the experimental analysis of behavior. His view of operant behavior as the outcome of differential reinforcement provides an invaluable lesson in scientific research and theory. He studied schedules of reinforcement to generate an in-depth analysis of the complex interactions existing when contingencies exert their control over behavior. He has been instrumental in showing how behavior is determined by the dynamic interaction of factors brought into play by the imposition of any schedule, and he has a remarkably intuitive understanding of the nature of these determining variables. Some of these causal events are imposed directly by the schedule, but others arise in a more indirect manner through necessary constraints. In Morse's view, schedules can be more fundamental in determining behavior than are the scheduled events themselves. Behavior is the shaped product of an organism's history in combination with present environmental conditions. His impact deserves to be more than historical: A study of his work continues to reward the reader with exciting insights into the nature of behavioral control.     

Identity matching-to-sample with olfactory stimuli in rats

Identity matching-to-sample has been difficult to demonstrate in rats, but most studies have used visual stimuli. There is evidence that rats can acquire complex forms of olfactory stimulus control, and the present study explored the possibility that identity matching might be facilitated in rats if olfactory stimuli were used. Four rats were trained on an identity match-to-sample procedure with odorants mixed in cups of sand as stimuli. Digging in the sample cup produced two comparison cups, and digging in the comparison cup that contained the same scent as the sample was reinforced. When criterion accuracy levels were reached, novel stimuli were added to the baseline training regimen. All 4 rats reached terminal performance of above 90% correct matching with more than 20 different baseline stimuli and matched novel stimulus combinations with above-chance accuracy; 3 of the 4 rats matched novel stimuli at levels significantly above chance. Accurate matching performance was demonstrated both with 2- and 3-comparison procedures. These results suggest that generalized matching-to-sample can be observed in rats when olfactory stimuli are used and, furthermore, that multiple-exemplar training may be important for its emergence.     

Function transformation without reinforcement

In studies of function transformation, participants initially are taught to match stimuli in the presence of a contextual cue, X; the stimuli to be matched bear some formal relation to each other, for example, a relation of opposition or difference. In a second phase, the participants are taught to match arbitrary stimuli (say, A and B) in the presence of X. In a final test, A often displays behavioral functions that differ from those of B, and can be predicted from the nature of the relation associated with X in the initial training phase. Here we report function-transformation effects in the absence of selection responses and of their reinforcers. In three experiments with college students, exposure to relations of difference or identity modified the responses given to later stimuli. In Experiment 1, responses to a test stimulus A varied depending on preexposure to pairs of colors that were distinct from A but exemplified relations of difference or identity. In Experiment 2, a stimulus A acquired distinct functions, depending on its previous pairing with a contextual cue X that had itself been paired with identity or difference among colors. Experiment 3 confirmed the results of Experiment 2 with a modified design. Our data are consistent with the notion that relations of identity or difference can serve as stimuli for Pavlovian processes, and, in compound with other cues, produce apparent function-transformation effects.     

The emergence of symmetry in a conditional discrimination task using different responses as propioceptive samples in pigeons

In Experiment 1, 10 pigeons were exposed to a successive symbolic matching-to-sample procedure in which the sample was generated by the pigeons' own behavior. Each trial began with both response keys illuminated white, one being the "correct" key and the other the "incorrect" key. The pigeons had no way of discriminating which key was correct and which incorrect, since these roles were assigned on a random basis with the same probability of 0.5 for each key. A fixed ratio of five responses was required on the correct key. However, each time the pigeon pecked the incorrect key, the correct key response counter reset. Five consecutive pecks on the correct key was the only way to end this component, and switch off both key lights. Two seconds later, these same keys were illuminated again, one green and the other red (comparison stimuli). Now, if the correct white key had been on the left, a peck at one color produced food, and if the correct white key had been on the right, a peck at the other color produced food. When the pigeons had learned this discrimination, they were exposed to several symmetry tests (simultaneous presentations of both keys illuminated the same color-i.e., both red or both green), in order to interchange the sample with the comparison stimuli. In Experiment 2, the importance of requiring discrimination between the samples and between the comparisons was analyzed. In Experiment 3, we compared the results of Experiment 1 with a slightly different experiment, which resulted in discrimination of key position, an exteroceptive stimulus. The results showed that symmetry emerged only when different responses were used as samples.     

Testing response-stimulus equivalence relations using differential responses as a sample

This study tested the notion that an equivalence relation may include a response when differential responses are paired with stimuli presented during training. Eight normal adults learned three kinds of computer mouse movements as differential response topographies (R1, R2, and R3). Next, in matching-to-sample training, one of the response topographies was used to select a comparison stimulus B (B1, B2, or B3) conditionally upon presentation of sample stimulus A (A1, A2, or A3), and to select stimulus D (D1, D2, or D3) conditionally upon presentation of stimulus C (C1, C2, or C3). After two sample-comparison-response relations (ABR and CDR) were established, 18 sample-comparison relations were tested (BA, DC, RA, RB, RC, RD, AC, CA, AD, DA, BC, CB, BD, DB, AA, BB, CC, and DD). In the RA, RB, RC, and RD tests, the differential responses (R1, R2, and R3) were used as sample stimuli. All subjects made class-consistent comparison selections in the tests. This study provides evidence that responses may become members of an equivalence class.     

Experimental control of nodality via equal presentations of conditional discriminations in different equivalence protocols under speed and no-speed conditions

A within-participant comparison of simple-to-complex, complex-to-simple, and simultaneous protocols was conducted establishing different sets of three 7-member equivalence classes for 4 undergraduate students. The protocols were implemented under either accuracy-only or accuracy-plus-speed conditions while keeping number of presentations of training and testing trials equal. The results partially support previous reports of differential effects on acquisition, with participants completing more blocks in training under the simultaneous than the complex-to-simple and the simple-to-complex protocols. Across the protocols, however, the number of trials completed to criterion did not vary systematically. More important, response speed and accuracy did not decrease as a function of nodal number, with or without the speed contingency, or under any protocol. The latter results challenge the generality of previous reports of the nodality effect and the notion of "relatedness" of equivalence-class members, and support a reinforcement-contingency, instead of a structural, perspective on equivalence-class formation.     

Stimulus equivalence: testing Sidman's (2000) theory

Sidman's (2000) theory regarding the origin of equivalence relations predicts that a reinforcing stimulus common to distinct equivalence classes must drop out of the equivalence relations. This prediction was tested in the present study by arranging class-specific reinforcers, R1 and R2, following correct responding on the prerequisite conditional discriminations (Ax-Bx, Cx-Bx) for two stimulus classes, A1B1C1 and A2B2C2. A class-common reinforcer, R3, was presented following correct responding on the prerequisite conditional discriminations for a further two stimulus classes, A3B3C3 and A4B4C4. Sidman's theory predicts reinforcer inclusion within Classes 1 and 2 only, given this training arrangement. Experiment 1 tested for the emergence of four equivalence classes and of stimulus-reinforcer and reinforcer-stimulus relations in each class. Four of the 6 subjects demonstrated the reinforcer-based relations in all four equivalence classes, rather than in only those classes with a class-specific reinforcer, as Sidman's theory predicts. One of the remaining 2 subjects showed the reinforcer-based relations in three of the four classes. Experiment 2 extended these findings to document the emergence of interclass matching relations based on the common reinforcer R3, in 5 of 6 subjects, such that a Class 3 sample occasioned the selection of a Class 4 sample when the Class 3 comparison was absent, and similarly, a Class 4 sample occasioned the selection of a Class 3 comparison when the Class 4 comparison was absent. These interclass relations emerged despite the simultaneous maintenance of Class 3 and 4 baseline conditional discriminations, so that the Class 3 and 4 stimuli and reinforcer simultaneously were, and were not, part of a single larger equivalence class. These data are irreconcilable with Sidman's theory, and question the utility of the application of the equivalence relation in describing derived stimulus relations.     

Reconstructing Distances among Objects from Their Discriminability

We describe a principled way of imposing a metric representing dissimilarities on any discrete set of stimuli (symbols, handwritings, consumer products, X-ray films, etc.), given the probabilities with which they are discriminated from each other by a perceiving system, such as an organism, person, group of experts, neuronal structure, technical device, or even an abstract computational algorithm. In this procedure one does not have to assume that discrimination probabilities are monotonically related to distances, or that the distances belong to a predefined class of metrics, such as Minkowski. Discrimination probabilities do not have to be symmetric, the probability of discriminating an object from itself need not be a constant, and discrimination probabilities are allowed to be 0’s and 1’s. The only requirement that has to be satisfied is Regular Minimality, a principle we consider the defining property of discrimination: for ordered stimulus pairs (a,b), b is least frequently discriminated from a if and only if a is least frequently discriminated from b. Regular Minimality generalizes one of the weak consequences of the assumption that discrimination probabilities are monotonically related to distances: the probability of discriminating a from a should be less than that of discriminating a from any other object. This special form of Regular Minimality also underlies such traditional analyses of discrimination probabilities as Multidimensional Scaling and Cluster Analysis. This research was supported by the NSF grant SES 0318010 (E.D.), Humboldt Research Award (E.D.), Humboldt Foundation grant DEU/1038348 (H.C. & E.D.), and DFG grant Co 94/5 (H.C.).