Concurrent identity training is not necessary for associative symmetry in successive matching

Campos, Heloísa Cursi; Urcuioli, Peter J.; Swisher, Melissa

doi:10.1002/jeab.51

Cited by 14 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In summary, Experiment 1 showed that rats can acquire a complex set of successive conditional discriminations using olfactory stimuli with schedule parameters based on Urcuioli (). However, there was little evidence of symmetry even after training that established the prerequisite relations that have been sufficient to produce symmetry in pigeons (Campos, Urcuioli & Swisher, ; Urcuioli, ; ; Urcuioli & Swisher, ). The procedures were closely patterned after the experimental strategy used by Urcuioli and his colleagues with pigeons, but several changes were necessary to make the transition to rats and olfactory stimuli.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Emergent identity but not symmetry following successive olfactory discrimination training in rats

Prichard

Panoz-Brown

Bruce

et al. 2015

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The search for symmetry in nonhuman subjects has been successful in recent studies in pigeons (e.g., Urcuioli, 2008). The key to these successes has been the use of successive discrimination procedures and combined training on identity, as well as arbitrary, baseline relations. The present study was an effort to extend the findings and theoretical analysis developed by Urcuioli and his colleagues to rats using olfactory rather than visual stimuli. Experiment 1 was a systematic replication of Urcuioli's (2008) demonstration of symmetry in pigeons. Rats were exposed to unreinforced symmetry probes following training with two arbitrary and four identity conditional discriminations. Response rates on symmetry probe trials were low and provided little evidence for emergent symmetry in any of the seven rats tested. In Experiment 2, a separate group of six rats was trained on four identity relations and was then exposed to probe trials with four novel odor stimuli. Response rates were high on identity probe trials, and low on nonmatching probe trials. The similar patterns of responding on baseline and probe trials that were shown by most rats provided a demonstration of generalized identity matching. These findings suggest that the development of stimulus control topographies in rats with olfactory stimuli may differ from those that emerge in pigeons with visual stimuli. Urcuioli's (2008) theory has been highly successful in predicting conditions necessary for stimulus class formation in pigeons, but may not be sufficient to fully understand determinants of emergent behaviors in other nonhuman species. Keywords symmetry; generalized identity; successive conditional discrimination; olfactometer; rats; nosepokeThe search for symmetry in nonhuman animals has been both active and controversial since the seminal paper by Sidman, Rauzin, Lazar, Cunningham, Tailby and Carrigan (1982). Sidman et al. showed emergent symmetry along with the other relations of stimulus equivalence in human children, but not in monkeys or baboons. Interest in the possible significance of this empirical difference between humans and nonhuman animals in the relations that may emerge following arbitrary or symbolic conditional discrimination training has led to numerous follow-up studies with many species and procedural variations Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Mark Galizio, Department of Psychology, University of North Carolina Wilmington, 601 S. College Rd., Wilmington NC, USA 28403. galizio@uncw.edu. HHS Public Access Author ManuscriptAuthor Manuscript Author ManuscriptAuthor Manuscript that have yielded mixed results. While emergent identity and transitivity relations have been frequently observed across species, symmetry has been elusive at best (cf., Lionello-DeNolf, 2009;McIlvane, 2013;. Lionello-DeNolf's comprehensive review only found strong evidence for symmetry in two species: in sea lions after extensive training with multiple exemplars and class-specific reinforcers (Kastak & Schusterman, 2002;Schu...

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Emergent identity but not symmetry following successive olfactory discrimination training in rats

Prichard

Panoz-Brown

Bruce

et al. 2015

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Importantly, Frank and Wasserman (2005) and Urcuioli (2008, Experiment 3) showed that pigeons concurrently trained to accurate levels of performance on AB, AA, and BB successive matching subsequently showed BA symmetry in testing. Specifically, they responded more to the comparisons on BA test trials that were the reverse of the reinforced AB training trials than on BA test trials that were the reverse of the non-reinforced AB training trials (see also Campos, Urcuioli, & Swisher, 2014). …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Transitive and anti-transitive emergent relations in pigeons: Support for a theory of stimulus-class formation

Urcuioli

Swisher

2015

Behavioural Processes

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Stimulus class formation is inferred when conditional discrimination training yields new (emergent) conditional relations between the training stimuli. The present experiments demonstrated two such relations in pigeons after successive matching-to-sample training. Experiment 1 showed that transitivity (AC matching) emerged after training on AB and BC arbitrary matching plus BB identity matching: Pigeons responded relatively more to the comparisons on AC test trials in which both the A samples and C comparisons were elements of reinforced arbitrary baseline relations involving the same nominal B stimulus. Experiment 2 showed the opposite effect (“anti-transitivity”) after training on the same arbitrary relations but with BB oddity instead: Pigeons responded relatively more to the comparisons on AC test trials in which the A sample was an element of a reinforced baseline relation and the C comparison was an element of a non-reinforced baseline relation, or vice versa. Experiment 2 also showed that AB and BC training alone generally does not yield an emergent effect. These findings extend the range of emergent phenomena observed in non-human animals and are consistent with predictions from Urcuioli's (2008) theory of pigeons’ stimulus class formation.

show abstract

“…Training solely on AB successive MTS, however, is not sufficient to observe BA symmetry (e.g., Frank & Wasserman, 2005, Experiment 2). However, when AB baseline training is accompanied by concurrent training on AA and BB identity successive MTS (Frank & Wasserman, 2005, Experiment 1; Urcuioli, , Experiment 3; see also Swisher & Urcuioli, 2013) or by concurrent training on AA and BB successive oddity (Campos et al, ), symmetry is observed. The additional matching or oddity tasks guarantee that pigeons see each nominal stimulus both as a sample and as a comparison prior to the BA symmetry tests, thus potentially minimizing or avoiding generalization decrement (e.g., decreased responding due to stimulus novelty) in the shift from training to testing.…”

Section: Design Theoretical Mechanisms and Predictionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Recent studies using successive (go/no‐go) matching‐to‐sample (MTS) have shown reliable evidence for associative symmetry and other emergent relations of equivalence in pigeons (e.g., Campos, Urcuioli & Swisher, ; Frank & Wasserman, 2005; Sweeney & Urcuioli, 2010; Urcuioli, ; Urcuioli & Swisher, 2015). The positive symmetry results, in particular, stand in stark contrast to the mostly negative findings previously obtained in studies using two‐alternative MTS (e.g., Dugdale & Lowe, 2000; Hogan & Zentall, 1977; Lionello‐DeNolf & Urcuioli, 2002; Sidman, Rauzin, Lazar, Cunningham, Tailby & Carrigan, ; see also Lionello‐DeNolf, and Urcuioli, ).…”

Section: Design Theoretical Mechanisms and Predictionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Symmetry in the pigeon with sample and comparison stimuli in different locations. II

Swisher

Urcuioli

2015

J Exper Analysis Behavior

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pigeons were trained on arbitrary (hue-form) and identity (hue-hue and form-form) successive matching with center-key samples and left-key comparisons. Later, they were tested on form-hue (symmetry) probe trials that were structured either in the different-locations fashion as the baseline trials (viz., center-key samples and left-key comparisons) or with a constant location by using center-key samples and center-key comparisons. Three of four pigeons showed symmetry when the probe-trial samples and comparisons appeared in center- and left-key spatial locations, respectively, but none did when both appeared in one (center-key) location. Subsequently, pigeons previously tested with center-key samples and left-key comparisons were tested with those form-hue stimuli shown in the same (center-key) location, and vice versa for the other pigeons. None of the former pigeons showed symmetry on the second test even if they had on the first test. By contrast, two of three pigeons that had not shown symmetry with single-location samples and comparisons did so when those stimuli appeared in different (center- vs. left-key) locations. Taken together, these results show that symmetrical relations between the same, nominal matching stimuli depend on where those stimuli appear in testing vis-à-vis in training and, more generally, confirm that spatial location is part of the functional matching stimuli.

show abstract

Concurrent identity training is not necessary for associative symmetry in successive matching

Cited by 14 publications

References 34 publications

Emergent identity but not symmetry following successive olfactory discrimination training in rats

Emergent identity but not symmetry following successive olfactory discrimination training in rats

Transitive and anti-transitive emergent relations in pigeons: Support for a theory of stimulus-class formation

Symmetry in the pigeon with sample and comparison stimuli in different locations. II

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About