Sample‐specific Ratio Effects in Matching to Sample

Paul, Coleman

doi:10.1901/jeab.1983.39-77

Cited by 16 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Specifically, selective reinforcementdisrupted established matchingbehavior. Similar results were reported by Paul (1983).…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 92%

Differential reinforcement effects on matching-order sequences

Pisacreta

1984

Bull. Psychon. Soc.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Three pigeons were previously trained on the matching-to-sample task with yellow, white, and blue stimuli. After acquisition, each of the three center-column keys of a nine-key response panel presented a different sample. The pigeons could match the three samples in any order. Then, reinforcement was provided only for particular sample matches, and later for matches on only one level (upper, middle, or lower keys). Intermittent reinforcement reduced matching accuracy . The birds frequently matched the only reinforced sample first. Later, they first matched whichever sample appeared on the only reinforced level. Additional novel-form stimuli reduced matching accuracy, and novel colors yielded some evidence of transfer of matching.Recently, Pisacreta and Rautio (1984) trained pigeons on the matching-to-sample (MTS) paradigm with yellow, white, and blue stimuli. Each MTS trial was presented on the lower, middle, or upper three horizontal keys of a nine-key response panel. Later, each of the three center-column keys simultaneously presented a sample. The pigeons could match the samples in any order. The birds developed dominant matching-order sequences. The authors also reported that if different ratio values were paired with each sample, the birds would alter their matching-order sequences in order to match the samples with the lowest ratio requirement first. The birds also matched a "novel" sample last, when it was presented with two other "familiar" samples.An interesting but seldom explored MTS manipulation is the use of intermittent reinforcement for correct matches. Nevin, Cumming, and Berryman (I963) reinforced correct matches on a fixed-ratio 3 (FR3), FR6 , or FR9 schedule; that is, every third , sixth, or ninth correct match, respectively, produced grain. They reported an inverse relationship between the reinforcement ratio and matching accuracy . Furthermore, matching improved as the FR requirement was satisfied .The first seven phases of the present experiment employed the concurrent MTS procedure used by Pisacreta and Rautio (1984) in conjunction with intermittent reinforcement for successful matches. This procedure was used for two purposes: (I) to see if intermittent reinforcement would reduce matching accuracy, and (2) to demonstrate that reinforcing only particular hue matches or correct matches on only one level (upper, middle, or lower keys) would control matchingorder sequences .

show abstract

“…Specifically, selective reinforcementdisrupted established matchingbehavior. Similar results were reported by Paul (1983).…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 92%

Differential reinforcement effects on matching-order sequences

Pisacreta

1984

Bull. Psychon. Soc.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Performance of CR1 in turn produces the unique cue S1. As a result, on each trial the comparison selection response (R) is controlled by an arbitrarily composed stimulus compound comprised of the appropriate comparison stimulus (COt) and S1 (Paul, 1983). The stimulus compound is arbitrarily composed because its two elements (St and COt) share no common, distinguishing properties-eeither physically or in the existing contingencies of reinforcement.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Coding Responses and the Generalization of Matching to Sample in Children

Lowenkron

1984

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two experiments studied the conditions of stimulus control necessary for the generalization of relational matching to sample. Matching required the selection of comparison shapes rotated 900 clockwise from the orientation of the corresponding sample. In Experiment 1, five children were taught to: (a) code the orientations of samples, (b) transform sample codings to account for the 90°rotation, and (c) repeat the transformed sample coding response to a comparison. High levels of generalization occurred with a set of novel stimuli for which stable sample-coding responses were initially available. In another novel set, where stable sample-coding responses were not initially available, low levels of generalized matching were recorded. Matching performance improved after stable coding responses were trained. In Experiment 2, two children and three adults were trained in a form of the matching task that produced poor generalization despite the presence of stable sample-coding responses. Retraining to modify the stimulus control exerted by these coding responses produced an immediate improvement in generalized matching to sample. Results suggest that the generalization of matching is dependent on the structure of stimulus control that the component responses exert on each other.

show abstract

“…On one hand, the facilitating effect of the sample response requirement found in the literature has been replicated (for example, Riesen & Nissen, 1942;Eckerman, 1970;Lyderson & Perkins, 1974;Zentall & Hogan, 1978;Urcuioli & Honig, 1980;Paul, 1983), however, subjects continued behaving in block B as if a conditional discrimination was being trained, although this observation response was not required.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 78%

Simple discrimination training and conditional discrimination response

Pérez

Polín

2015

AN PSICOL-SPAIN

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Título: Entrenamiento de discriminación simple y respuesta de discriminación condicional. Resumen: La discriminación condicional es un procedimiento cuyo uso está ampliamente extendido en el AEC (Análisis Experimental del Comportamiento), especialmente las denominadas "Igualaciones a la Muestra". Aunque se ha puesto en práctica con una amplia variedad de especies, el comportamiento de humanos con competencias verbales en este tipo de tareas puede involucrar otras variables de control diferentes a las contingencias de cuatro términos programadas. El objetivo de este trabajo fue comprobar si se podían adquirir discriminaciones condicionales aunque las contingencias de refuerzo no involucrasen a la muestra. Participaron 109 alumnos de psicología que fueron distribuidos en tres condiciones. Todos fueron expuestos a dos bloques de entrenamiento (A y B) con una muestra y tres comparaciones, no obstante, en el 75% de los ensayos del bloque B la muestra no funcionaba realmente como un estímulo condicional. Se manipularon la simultaneidad muestra-comparaciones y el requerimiento de respuesta de observación a la muestra, dando lugar a tres condiciones diferentes. Los resultados no mostraron diferencias entre la velocidad de adquisición del bloque A y del B en ninguna condición, lo que apunta a que el comportamiento de los participantes estaba más controlado por la configuración estimular que por las contingencias de reforzamiento. Palabras clave: Igualación a la muestra; discriminación simple; conducta gobernada por reglas; humanos. Abstract:The conditional discrimination is a procedure the use of which is widely extended in the EAB (Experimental Analysis of Behavior), especially those known as "Matching to Sample". Although it has been used with a wide variety of species, the behavior of humans with verbal skills in these kinds of tasks may involve other control variables which are different from the scheduled contingencies of four terms. The aim of this work was to verify if conditional discriminations could be acquired, although reinforcement contingencies did not involve the sample. 109 psychology students, who were divided into three conditions, participated in the study. All of them were exposed to two blocks of training (A and B), with one sample and three comparisons, however, the sample did not really function as a conditional stimulus in 75% of the trials in block B. Simultaneity between sample and comparisons, as well as the requirement of a sample observation response, were manipulated resulting in three different conditions. The results showed no differences between acquisition speed in block A and block B in any condition, which suggests that the behavior of the participants was more controlled by the stimuli configuration than by the reinforcement contingencies.

show abstract

Sample‐specific Ratio Effects in Matching to Sample

Cited by 16 publications

References 9 publications

Differential reinforcement effects on matching-order sequences

Differential reinforcement effects on matching-order sequences

Coding Responses and the Generalization of Matching to Sample in Children

Simple discrimination training and conditional discrimination response

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About