Relational Discrimination by Pigeons in a Go/No‐go Procedure With Compound Stimuli: A Methodological Note

Abstract

A go/no-go procedure with compound stimuli typically establishes emergent behavior that parallels in structure and typical outcome that of conventional tests for symmetric, transitive, and equivalence relations in normally capable adults. The present study employed a go/no-go compound stimulus procedure with pigeons. During training, pecks to two-component compounds A1B1, A2B2, B1C1, and B2C2 were followed by food. Pecks to compounds A1B2, A2B1, B1C2, and B2C1 re-started the 30-s stimulus presentation interval. The absence of pecking to those compounds for 30 s ended the trial. Subsequent tests presented these components in new spatial arrangements and/or in recombinative compounds that together corresponded to conventional tests of symmetry, transitivity, and equivalence: B1A1, B2A2, C1B1, C2B2, A1C1, A2C2, C1A1, C2A2 vs. B1A2, B2A1, C1B2, C2B1, A1C2, A2C1, C1A2, C2A1 (positive vs. negative instances of symmetric, transitive, and equivalence relations). On tests for symmetric relations, all pigeons behaved in a manner consistent with training on both positive instances (i.e., by responding) and on negative instances (i.e., by not responding). By contrast, the pigeons' behavior on tests for transitivity and equivalence was inconsistent with baseline training, thus failing to show the recombinative discrimination performance that is typical of normally capable humans when trained and tested using the go/no-go procedure with compound stimuli.

Analyzing the Stimulus Control Acquisition in Simple Discrimination Tasks through Eye Movement

“…Thus, considering that effective observation behavior can be a prerequisite for learning stimulus discriminative functions (Dinsmoor, 1985;Schroeder, 1997), the differences in the time spent observing the stimuli during simultaneous and successive training procedures may refl ect differences in the establishment of stimulus control, as previously suggested (Campos et al, 2011;Debert, 2003;Debert et al, 2007). Although the present results are limited due to the number of participants and the absence of statistical analysis, recording eye movement behavior is suggested as a useful tool for investigating differences in the stimulus control relations that are established during various discriminative training procedures.…”

“…However, some authors have argued that a simple discrimination procedure with a successive presentation of stimuli increases the probability of establishing a discriminated response that is controlled by aspects of the S+ and concurrently by aspects of the S- (Campos, Debert, Barros, & McIlvane, 2011;Debert, 2003;Debert, Matos, & McIlvane, 2007), which might not be the case in procedures with a simultaneous presentation of the stimuli. Goulart, Mendonça, Barros, Galvão and McIlvane (2005), for example, carried out an experiment with two monkeys (Cebus apella) which were trained in a simple discrimination task.…”

Classes De Equivalência E Classes Funcionais via Procedimento Go/No-Go Com Estímulos Compostos

“…Nos últimos anos, uma série de procedimentos alternativos ao MTS passaram a ser utilizados em estudos sobre classes de equivalência, como o respondent-type procedure (e.g., Leader, Barnes-Holmes, & Smeets, 2000;Smeets, Leader, & Barnes, 1997), repeated discrimination reversal training (e.g., Vaughan, 1988;Sidman, Wynne, Maguire, & Barnes, 1989) e procedimento go/no-go com estímulos compostos (e.g., Campos, Debert, Barros, & McIlvane, 2011;Debert, Matos, & McIlvane, 2007;Debert, Huziwara,Faggiani, Mathis, & McIlvane, 2009;Perez, Campos, & Debert, 2009).…”

“…Esses resultados foram replicados por uma série de outros estudos (e.g., Campos et al, 2011;Debert et al, 2009;Perez et al, 2009). Entretanto, para verificar se o procedimento go/no-go com estímulos compostos seria de fato uma alternativa ao MTS padrão é necessário também que se avalie a transferência de função, fenômeno amplamente replicado com a utilização do MTS (e.g., Augustson, Dougher & Markham, 2000;Barnes & Keenan, 1993;de Rose, McIlvane, Dube, Galpin, & Stoddard, 1988;de Rose, McIlvane, Dube, & Stoddard, 1988;Dougher, Augustson, Markham, Greenway, & Wulfert, 1994;Lynch & Green, 1993;Valverde, Luciano & Barnes-Holmes, 2009;Wulfert & Hayes, 1988).…”

Simulação computacional do comportamento de formação de classes de equivalência pelo procedimento go/no-go com estímulos compostos

“…Esses resultados são muito diferentes do que se observa em experimentos com humanos utilizando-se o procedimento go/no-go com estímulos compostos (e.g., Debert, Matos & McIlvane, 2007;Perez, Campos & Debert, 2009;Debert, Huziwara, Faggiani, De Mathis & Mcilvane, 2009;Campos, Debert, Barros & McIlvane, 2011;Grisante et al, 2013). Entretanto, outros estudos com simulação de formação de classes de equvalência com o procedimento yes-no, por exemplo, também obtiveram o padrão inverso mencionado quando o treino de classes adicionais não foi realizado (e.g., Tovar & Torres, 2012).…”