On the Limits of the Matching Concept in Monkeys (Cebus Apella)

D’Amato, M. R.; Colombo, Michael

doi:10.1901/jeab.1989.52-225

Cited by 27 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Serge, personal communication, April, 1985). Furthermore, the results support the growing recognition that the spatial location of the stimuli is a critical parameter in conditional discrimination procedures (D'Amato & Colombo, 1989;Lipkens et al, 1988;Mackay, 1991;Sidman, 1992Sidman, , 1994Zentall & Urcuioli, 1993).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 69%

Matching‐to‐sample Performance in Rats: A Case of Mistaken Identity?

Iversen

1997

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Three rats had previously acquired a simultaneous matching-to-sample performance with steady and blinking lights. In training, the sample stimulus had always appeared on the middle of three horizontally arranged keys with the comparison stimuli on the side keys. In Experiment 1, the sample stimulus appeared on any of the three keys with the comparison stimuli on the remaining two. The matching-to-sample performance broke down with variable sample and comparison locations; the sample stimulus did not control responding to the comparison stimuli when it appeared on a side key, but it retained control when it appeared on the middle key (as in training). In Experiment 2, the rats were trained with the sample always on the left key. When the sample appeared on either of the trained locations (left or middle key), it retained control for both locations. When the sample then appeared on any of the three keys, as in Experiment 1, sample control did not transfer to the untrained location (right key). The experiments demonstrate that training with fixed sample and comparison locations may establish spatial location as an additional controlling aspect of the stimuli displayed on the keys; stimulus location had become part of the definition of the controlling stimuli. The rats' performance seemed best described as specific discriminations involving the visual stimuli and their spatial locations rather than as identity matching.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 69%

Matching‐to‐sample Performance in Rats: A Case of Mistaken Identity?

Iversen

1997

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Apparently, the rats had merely acquired a discrimination of specific stimuli and their position. The collective data support the growing evidence from studies with pigeons and monkeys that subjects do not ordinarily acquire a "matching concept" but instead acquire separate discriminations (see also L. R. Cohen, Looney, Brady, & Aucella, 1976;D'Amato & Colombo, 1989;Farthing & Opuda, 1974;Holmes, 1979;Iversen, Sidman, & Carrigan, 1986;Santi, 1978).…”

Section: Zero-second Delaysupporting

confidence: 76%

Acquisition of Matching‐to‐sample Performance in Rats Using Visual Stimuli on Nose Keys

Iversen

1993

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Steady and blinking white lights were projected on three nose keys arranged horizontally on one wall. The procedure was a conditional discrimination with a sample stimulus presented on the middle key and comparison stimuli on the side keys. Three rats acquired simultaneous "identity matching." Accuracy reached 80% in about 25 sessions and 90% or higher after about 50 sessions. Acquisition progressed through several stages of repeated errors, alteration between comparison keys from trial to trial, preference of specific keys or stimuli, and a gradual lengthening of strings of consecutive trials with correct responses. An analysis of the acquisition curves for individual trial configurations indicated that the matching-to-sample performance possibly consisted of separate discriminations.

show abstract

“…Sensory Sciences Center,Suite 316,6420 Lamar Fleming Avenue,Texas Medical Center,Houston. TX 77030. learn abstract concepts (D 'Amato & Salmon, 1984;D'Amato, Salmon, & Colombo, 1985;Premack, 1978Premack, , 1983aPremack, , 1983b. On the other hand, others have pointed to a lack of adequate learned skills that prevents some species from learning abstract concepts.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Auditorysame/different concept learning by monkeys

Wright

Shyan

Jitsumori

1990

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two rhesus monkeys learned the auditory abstract concept of same/different. They were trained with 38 different environmental and natural sounds, which were arranged in different combinations as training progressed. Upon transfer to 138 different novel stimuli, they performed as well (78.8% correct) on the first exposure to the novel stimuli as they did (77.3%) with their training stimuli. The comparatively large set of training sounds, contact with the sound source, and a special fading procedure are thought to have contributed to the monkeys' being able to learn this concept. Implications for species' similarities/differences in cognitive processing are discussed.Our ability to abstract general solutions from specific problems influences our ability to reason through problems, to arrive at the proper solutions, and to communicate our thoughts quickly and efficiently. Few would debate that humans are superior to other animals in these skills of abstracting and reasoning. Indeed, debate has centered on whether or not animals have any of this ability to learn such abstract solutions-called abstract conceptsand if so, which animal species do have this ability.Abstract concepts, also referred to as relational concepts, higber-level/-order concepts, rules, or simply concepts, are to be distinguished from natural concepts (Herrnstein, Loveland, & Cable, 1976;Medin & Schaffer, 1978), class concepts (Bourne, 1970), and property sets (Hayes-Roth & Hayes-Roth, 1977). With abstract concepts, there is a critical relationship among stimuli that determine the concept (e.g., sameldifferent, matching-to-sample, oddity-from-sample) , and this relationship transcends individual stimuli and individual features. With natural concepts, class concepts, or property sets, the focus is on critical features of individual stimuli (e.g., person, water, or tree; see Hermstein et aI., 1976), and these features determine a category, which is sometimes called a concept.Considerable research effort and theorizing have been directed toward determining which animal species can or cannot learn abstract concepts, and implications have been drawn regarding phylogenetic differences in cognitive capacity. It has been argued that some classes of species (e.g., avians) do not have sufficient cognitive capacity to

show abstract

On the Limits of the Matching Concept in Monkeys (Cebus Apella)

Cited by 27 publications

References 22 publications

Matching‐to‐sample Performance in Rats: A Case of Mistaken Identity?

Matching‐to‐sample Performance in Rats: A Case of Mistaken Identity?

Acquisition of Matching‐to‐sample Performance in Rats Using Visual Stimuli on Nose Keys

Auditorysame/different concept learning by monkeys

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About