Quantitative Analyses of Matching‐to‐sample Performance

Abstract

Six pigeons performed a simultaneous matching-to-sample (MTS) task involving patterns of dots on a liquid-crystal display. Two samples and two comparisons differed in terms of the density of pixels visible through pecking keys mounted in front of the display. Selections of Comparison 1 after Sample 1, and of Comparison 2 after Sample 2, produced intermittent access to food, and errors always produced a time-out. The disparity between the samples and between the comparisons varied across sets of conditions. The ratio of food deliveries for the two correct responses varied over a wide range within each set of conditions, and one condition arranged extinction for correct responses following Sample 1. The quantitative models proposed by Davison and Tustin (1978), Alsop (1991), and failed to predict performance in some extreme reinforcer-ratio conditions because comparison choice approached indifference (and strong position biases emerged) when the sample clearly signaled a low (or zero) rate of reinforcement. An alternative conceptualization of the reinforcement contingencies operating in MTS tasks is advanced and was supported by further analyses of the data. This model relates the differential responding between the comparisons following each sample to the differential reinforcement for correct responses following that sample.

A Theory of Attending and Reinforcement in Conditional Discriminations

“…In Part 1 of his experiment, the differences between both S 1 and S 2 and C 1 and C 2 were large; in Part 2, the difference between C 1 and C 2 was reduced. The functions relating log(B 1 /B 2 ) to log(R 11 /R 22 ) for S 1 and S 2 trials were curvilinear and were not well described by the basic Davison-Nevin (1999) model (see Jones, 2003, Figure 5). However, predictions of the present model fitted the data quite well, as shown in Figure 6.…”

“…First, Jones (2003) varied the reinforcer ratio over a wide range with two levels of discriminability between the comparisons 2 A preliminary version entitled ''Reinforcement, attending, and remembering'' was presented at the meeting of the California Association for Behavior Analysis, February 2005. C 1 and C 2 .…”

“…To interpret his results, Jones (2003) construed trials with C 1 on the left and C 2 on the right, and trials with C 1 on the right and C 2 on the left, as different configurations, thus defining eight discriminated operants maintained by different relative frequencies of reinforcement. His data for the condition with extinction versus continuous reinforcement, as well as his other data, were explained by this approach.…”

Effects of prefeeding, extinction, and distraction during sample and comparison presentation on sensitivity to reinforcer frequency in matching to sample

“…For example, Jones (2003) included a condition in which extinction was arranged on one choice alternative. Under this condition, choice responding approached indifference.…”

A computational technique for improving estimates of discriminability and bias across multiple dimensions of choice

“…A common example is that the experimenter may define the relevant choice as one between red and green colors but may randomly vary the position of those choices from trial to trial between left and right side keys. Even though the left-right side of the choice should be irrelevant to the arranged task, it can nevertheless have a strong influence on choice: Subjects can exhibit side bias (a bias to left vs. right; see, e.g., Jones, 2003;Katz, 1989;Nevin & Grosch, 1990). When side bias-or any other unaccounted-for bias-is evident, it tends to deflate estimates of discriminability and bias and causes the two measures to become interdependent (Brown & White, 2009).…”