Stimulus Definition in Conditional Discriminations

Iversen, Iver H.; Sidman, Murray; Carrigan, Philip F.

doi:10.1901/jeab.1986.45-297

Cited by 101 publications

(125 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Iversen, 1997;Iversen, Sidman, & Carrigan, 1986;Lionello & Urcuioli, 1998;Lionello-DeNolf & Urcuioli, 2000Sidman, 1992). To illustrate, when subjects are trained using fixed positions (e.g., samples on the center key and comparisons on the two side keys) and then tested using variable positions (e.g., samples presented on one of the side keys and the comparisons presented on the remaining two keys), accuracy is significantly lower than when samples and comparisons maintain fixed positions (e.g., Iversen, 1997;Iversen et al, 1986;Lionello & Urcuioli, 1998). According to Lionello and Urcuioli, control by stimulus location may explain the negative results obtained in tests for emergent relations with the three-key paradigm because, in some cases at least, the locations of samples and comparisons changed during the tests.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Emergent relations in pigeons following training with temporal samples

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In two experiments, we investigated emergent conditional relations in pigeons using a symbolic matching-tosample task with temporal stimuli as the samples and hues as the comparisons. Both experiments comprised three phases. In Phase I, pigeons learned to choose a red keylight (R) but not a green keylight (G) after a 1-s signal. They also learned to choose G but not R after a 4-s signal. In Phase II, correct responding consisted of choosing a blue keylight (B) after a 4-s signal and a yellow keylight (Y) after a 16-s signal. Comparisons G and B were both related to the same 4-s sample, whereas comparisons R and Y had no common sample. In Phase III, R and G were presented as samples, and B and Y were presented as the comparisons. The choice of B was correct following G, and the choice of Y was correct following R. If a relation between comparisons that shared a common sample were to emerge, then responding to B given G would be more likely than responding to Y given R. The results were generally consistent with this prediction, suggesting, for the first time in pigeons, the emergence of novel relations that involve temporal stimuli as nodal samples.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Emergent relations in pigeons following training with temporal samples

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although the advantages brought by the specific changes selected in our procedures (i.e., the changes mentioned in the Introduction) remain to be analyzed, some evaluation of possible advantages may be offered. Iversen, Sidman, and Carrigan (1986) carried out an experiment in which the sample was first presented only on the center key, and was then allowed to appear on any one of the three keys, with the comparisons on the remaining two. The change from a fixed to a variable sample and comparison locations caused the line orientations (horizontal and vertical lines) used as controlling stimuli to lose control over the animals' responses.…”

Section: Trainingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Formation of Transitivity in Conditional Matching to Sample by Pigeons

Kuno

Kitadate

Iwamoto

1994

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Four homing pigeons were trained over 5 months in a zero-delay, "arbitrary" matching-to-sample procedure with sample and comparison stimuli presented on any of three response keys. Birds were also required to complete a fixed-ratio 10 requirement on both sample and comparison stimuli to terminate their presentation. The procedure resulted in the establishment of relations that were not specifically trained and that can be characterized by the property of transitivity in a stimulus equivalence context. This result was in contrast with the findings obtained from most previous research with nonhuman subjects.Key words: stimulus equivalence, conditional matching to sample, zero-delay matching to sample, transitivity, spatial location, fixed-ratio sample requirements, fixed-ratio comparison requirements, key peck, pigeons Untrained or derived relations among stimuli trained during a conditional discrimination have been studied in various approaches. One possible standard for classifying these various approaches is based on which relations are trained in the original training. With this approach, three types of paradigms are identified, as illustrated in Figure 1 (A, B, and C). With human subjects, all the various derived relations have been shown, demonstrating the formation of stimulus equivalence (Devany, Hayes, & Nelson, 1986;Lazar, Davis-Lang, & Sanchez, 1984;Mackay & Sidman, 1984;Sidman, 1971). For example, if a verbally competent human subject is trained to pick Stimulus B in the presence of Stimulus A and Stimulus C in the presence of Stimulus B (Atype paradigm), the subject will now show derived symmetry (pick A given B and B given C), derived transitivity (A to C), and reflexivity (A to A, B to B, and C to C). These derived relations have been used as the defining characteristics of a phenomenon known as stimulus equivalence (Sidman, 1971;. This phenomenon has been shown not only in adults but also in children and in mentally retarded persons. On the other hand, with nonhuman subjects, although a great deal of effort has been made to investigate stimulus equivalence, the various derived relations have not always been found

show abstract

“…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%

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

Urcuioli

2007

Learning & Behavior

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

Stimulus Definition in Conditional Discriminations

Cited by 101 publications

References 2 publications

Emergent relations in pigeons following training with temporal samples

Emergent relations in pigeons following training with temporal samples

Formation of Transitivity in Conditional Matching to Sample by Pigeons

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About