Symmetry and stimulus class formation in humans: Control by temporal location in a successive matching task

Symmetry refers to the observation that subjects will derive B‐A (e.g., in the presence of B, select A) after being trained on A‐B (e.g., in the presence of A, select B). Whereas symmetry is readily shown in humans, it has been difficult to demonstrate in nonhuman animals. This difficulty, at least in pigeons, may result from responding to specific stimulus properties that change when sample and comparison stimuli switch roles between training and testing. In three experiments with humans, we investigated to what extent human responding is influenced by the temporal location of stimuli using a successive matching‐to‐sample procedure. Our results indicate that temporal location does not spontaneously control responding in humans, although it does in pigeons. Therefore, the number of functional stimuli that humans respond to in this procedure may be half of the number of functional stimuli that the pigeons respond to. In a fourth experiment, we tested this assumption by doubling the number of functional stimuli controlling responding in human participants in an attempt to make the test more comparable to symmetry tests with pigeons. Here, we found that humans responded according to indirect class formation in the same manner as pigeons do. In sum, our results indicate that functional symmetry is readily observed in humans, even in cases where the temporal features of the stimuli prevent functional symmetry in pigeons. We argue that this difference in behavior between the two species does not necessarily reflect a difference in capacity to show functional symmetry between both species, but could also reflect a difference in the functional stimuli each species responds to.     

A REPLICATION AND EXTENSION OF THE ANTISYMMETRY EFFECT IN PIGEONS

Pigeons trained on successive AB symbolic matching show emergent BA antisymmetry if they are also trained on successive AA oddity and BB identity ( Urcuioli, 2008 , Experiment 4). In other words, when tested on BA probe trials following training, they respond more to the comparisons on the reverse of the nonreinforced AB baseline trials than on the reverse of the reinforced AB baseline trials (the opposite of an associative symmetry pattern). The present experiment replicated this finding. In addition, it showed that antisymmetry also emerged after baseline training on successive AB symbolic matching, AA identity, and BB oddity, consistent with the prediction from Urcuioli's (2008) theory of pigeons' stimulus‐class formation. Together, these results provide further empirical support for that theory including the proposition that the functional stimuli in pigeons' successive matching consist of the nominal stimuli plus their ordinal positions within a trial.     

ASSOCIATIVE SYMMETRY,ANTISYMMETRY, AND A THEORY OF PIGEONS' EQUIVALENCE‐CLASS FORMATION

Five experiments assessed associative symmetry in pigeons. In Experiments 1A, 1B and 2, pigeons learned two‐alternative symbolic matching with identical sample‐ and comparison‐response requirements and with matching stimuli appearing in all possible locations. Despite controlling for the nature of the functional stimuli and insuring all requisite discriminations, there was little or no evidence for symmetry. By contrast, Experiment 3 demonstrated symmetry in successive (go/no‐go) matching, replicating the findings of Frank and Wasserman (2005). In view of these results, I propose that in successive matching, (1) the functional stimuli are stimulus‐temporal location compounds, (2) continual nonreinforcement of some sample‐comparison combinations juxtaposed with reinforcement of other combinations throughout training facilitates stimulus class formation, (3) classes consist of the elements of the reinforced combinations, and (4) common elements produce class merger. The theory predicts that particular sets of training relations should yield “antisymmetry”: Pigeons should respond more to a reversal of the nonreinforced symbolic baseline relations than to a reversal of the reinforced relations. Experiment 4 confirmed this counterintuitive prediction. These results and other theoretical implications support the idea that equivalence relations are a natural consequence of reinforcement contingencies.