Control by Sample Location in Pigeons' Matching to Sample

Lionello, Karen M.; Urcuioli, Peter J.

doi:10.1901/jeab.1998.70-235

Cited by 73 publications

(115 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…These results are less surprising, however, on the assumption that in the absence of any special training (Lionello-DeNolf & Urcuioli, 2000), a visual stimulus appearing at one location is a functionally different stimulus for pigeons than the same stimulus appearing at another location (Lionello & Urcuioli, 1998). From this perspective, the left-versus right-sample contingencies for location-relevant group were not conflicting.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 84%

“…Previous research has shown that location is a controlling feature of the nominal conditional and discriminative stimuli in tasks such as matching-to-sample (Iversen, 1997;Iversen, Sidman, & Carrigan, 1986;Lionello & Urcuioli, 1998). For instance, Lionello and Urcuioli (1998) trained pigeons to high levels of accuracy on twosample, two-comparison matching tasks with a typical configuration of stimuli: samples on the center key and comparison stimuli on the adjacent (left and right) side keys.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For instance, Lionello and Urcuioli (1998) trained pigeons to high levels of accuracy on twosample, two-comparison matching tasks with a typical configuration of stimuli: samples on the center key and comparison stimuli on the adjacent (left and right) side keys. When pigeons were later tested with the familiar samples appearing on one or the other side key and the familiar comparisons appearing on the remaining two keys, performances were close to chance (50% accuracy).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Sample and comparison location as factors in matching acquisition, transfer, and acquired equivalence

Urcuioli

2007

Learning & Behavior

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pigeons learned symbolic matching with samples appearing equally often on left and right keys. For a location-relevant group, the reinforced comparison choice for each sample reversed across sample locations; for a location-irrelevant group, the reinforced choices were the same. Consistent with the hypothesis that samples at different locations are functionally different for pigeons, Experiment 1 showed that matching acquisition was comparable in these two groups. Nevertheless, the location-irrelevant group eventually ignored sample location, given that their performances subsequently transferred to a novel (center-key) sample location. This transfer was not simply due to sample familiarity at different training locations; rather, it required that left-and right-key samples occasion the same reinforced choices in training. Acquired equivalence between those samples was then assessed in Experiment 2. The location-irrelevant group showed the predicted equivalence effects, but the location-relevant group did not-in fact, its results were the opposite of those predicted by equivalence. Their results indicate that the functional comparison stimuli are also defined in terms of their locations.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 84%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Sample and comparison location as factors in matching acquisition, transfer, and acquired equivalence

Urcuioli

2007

Learning & Behavior

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…É provável que o estabelecimento de relações de controle de estímulo incoerentes com o planejamento experimental, como relatado aqui, explique boa parte dos resultados inconsistentes já obtidos em trabalhos buscando a demonstração de identidade generalizada (Iversen, 1997) e a formação de classes de equivalência em não-humanos e humanos com desenvolvimento severamente atrasado (Devany, Hayes, & Nelson, 1986;Lionello & Urcuioli, 1998;Lionello-DeNolf & Urcuioli, 2002;Sidman & cols., 1982).…”

Section: Discussionunclassified

“…A interferência do controle não programado pela posição dos estímulos já foi claramente documentada em procedimentos de treino de relações condicionais com sujeitos não-humanos (Iversen, 1997;Iversen, Sidman, & Carrigan, 1986;Lionello & Urcuioli, 1998;Sidman, 1992). Usualmente, um treino de emparelhamento ao modelo por identidade ocorre com o estímulo modelo sendo apresentado numa janela central e dois estímulos de comparação em duas janelas laterais.…”

unclassified

INTERFERÊNCIA DE CONTROLE PELA POSIÇÃO DO ESTÍMULO EM TREINO DE DISCRIMINAÇÕES CONDICIONAIS ARBITRÁRIAS EM MACACO-PREGO (Sapajus sp.)

Dias¹,

Brino²,

Barros³

2016

REBAC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

RESUMOA interferência do controle pela posição dos estímulos no treino de discriminações condicionais já foi documentada na literatura sobre controle de estímulos com animais. Estudos subsequentes sugeriram (1) a introdução da variação da posição do estímulo modelo e (2) a ampliação da variação da posição dos estímulos de comparação. O presente estudo documenta a interferência do controle pela posição dos estímulos mesmo nessas condições de grande variação da posição dos estímulos no treino. Foi utilizado o procedimento de matching-to-sample arbitrário com atraso zero com um macaco-prego (Sapajus sp.). A posição dos estímulos modelo e de comparação, apresentados na tela sensível ao toque de um computador, variava a cada tentativa, podendo assumir qualquer uma das nove posições de uma matriz 3x3. Durante o treino, foram observados erros sistemáticos nas configurações em tentativas em que a comparação correta (S+) se localizava nas posições 8 ou 9. Manipulações nas posições nas quais o S+ era apresentado confirmaram a interferência do controle pela posição. É provável que esse tipo de interferência esteja envolvido em boa parte dos fracassos obtidos em estudos visando demonstrar identidade generalizada e a formação de classes de equivalência em não-humanos.Palavras-chave: relações de controle de estímulos, discriminações condicionais arbitrárias, Sapajus sp. ABSTRACT The interference of the control by stimulus locations in conditional discrimination training has already been documented in the literature on stimulus control with animals. Subsequent studies suggested (1) variation of the position in which sample stimuli are presented and (2) increasing variation of comparison stimulus positions. The present study documents the interference of the control by stimulus position even in such condition of great variation of stimulus locations. Arbitrary zero-delay matching-to-sample was carried out with a capuchin monkey (Sapajus sp.). The position of sample and comparison stimuli, presented on the computer screen varied every trial among nine positions in a 3x3. During training, we observed systematic errors in trials in which correct comparison (S+) was located at Positions 8 and 9. Manipulations in the positions in which the stimuli were presented confirmed the interference of control by the position. It is possible that such kind of interference causes part of the difficulties in studies with the purpose of demonstrating generalized identity matching and equivalence class formation in non-human subjects.

show abstract

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

Control by Sample Location in Pigeons' Matching to Sample

Cited by 73 publications

References 17 publications

Sample and comparison location as factors in matching acquisition, transfer, and acquired equivalence

Sample and comparison location as factors in matching acquisition, transfer, and acquired equivalence

INTERFERÊNCIA DE CONTROLE PELA POSIÇÃO DO ESTÍMULO EM TREINO DE DISCRIMINAÇÕES CONDICIONAIS ARBITRÁRIAS EM MACACO-PREGO (Sapajus sp.)

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About