SYMMETRY AND TRANSITIVITY OF CONDITIONAL RELATIONS IN MONKEYS (CEBUS APELLA) <i>AND PIGEONS</i> (COLUMBA LIVIA)

D’Amato, M. R.; Salmon, David P.; Loukas, Eric; Tomie, Art

doi:10.1901/jeab.1985.44-35

Cited by 195 publications

(135 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

123

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Nonhuman subjects, however, have yielded mostly negative results (e.g., Hogan & Zentall, 1977;Lionello-DeNolf & Urcuioli, 2002;Lipkens, Kop, & Matthijs, 1988;Tomonaga, Matsuzawa, Fujita, & Yamamoto, 1991;Yamamoto & Asano, 1995). Reflexivity (Sweeney & Urcuioli, 2010), symmetry (Frank & Wasserman, 2005;Garcia & Benjumea 2006;Urcuioli, 2008;Vasconcelos & Urcuioli, 2011;Velasco, Huziwara, Machado, & Tomanari, 2010;Yamamoto & Asano, 1995), and transitivity (D'Amato, Salmon, Loukas, & Tomie, 1985;Kuno, Kitadate, & Iwamoto, 1994) have been reported in separate experiments with nonhuman animals. However, only one study with a California sea lion has obtained positive results with combined tests (Schusterman & Kastak, 1993).…”

mentioning

confidence: 93%

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

mentioning

confidence: 93%

Emergent relations in pigeons following training with temporal samples

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In summary, both studies (D'Amato et al, 1985;Velasco et al, 2010) reported evidence of symmetry in nonhuman subjects using a single-subject design with programmed reinforcement for the test trials. The goal of the present study was to evaluate a procedure to assess the property of symmetry in capuchin monkeys by combining elements of the procedures reported by D'Amato et al and Velasco et al The present study was part of a research program entitled Experimental School for Primates, which is dedicated to developing stimulus control procedures and evaluating the relational capabilities of capuchin monkeys (see Barros, Galvão, & McIlvane, 2002;Galvão, Soares Filho, Barros, & Souza, 2008).…”

Section: Assessing Symmetry In Capuchin Monkeysmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…One of these strategies consists of comparing the acquisition of conditional relations that are consistent with the conditional relations that are supposed to emerge (i.e., experimental condition) vs. inconsistent relations (i.e., control condition; e.g., D'Amato et al, 1985;Hogan & Zentall, 1977).…”

Section: Assessing Symmetry In Capuchin Monkeysmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, the emergence of conditional relations has rarely been documented in nonhuman subjects or humans with severe developmental delays or significant impairments in verbal functioning (D'Amato, Salmon, Loukas, & Tomie, 1985;Devany et al, 1986;Hogan & Zentall, 1977;Sidman, Rauzin, Lazar, Cunningham, Tailby, & Carrigan, 1982).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, its validity has recently been questioned, and conceptual theories and findings have been produced with the objective of distinguishing the two phenomena: generalized identity performance, such as generalized identity, which is usually treated as evidence of reflexivity 1 (e.g., Barros, Galvão, & McIlvane, 2002;Kastak & Schusterman, 1994) and transitivity (e.g., D'Amato et al, 1985;Schusterman & Kastak, 1993;Yamamoto & Asano, 1995). Symmetry has received special attention in the literature because the results with nonhuman subjects have mostly been negative (Barros, Galvão, & Fontes, 1996;D'Amato et al, 1985;Dugdale & Lowe, 2000;Gray, 1966;Hogan & Zentall, 1977;Holmes, 1979;Lionello-DeNolf & Urcuioli, 2002;Lipkens, Kop, & Matthijs, 1988;; for a review see Lionello-DeNolf, 2009) and because some experiments have shown that one can facilitate the emergence of the other properties by directly training this property (e.g., Schusterman & Kastak, 1993;Yamamoto & Asano, 1995).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Assessing Symmetry by Comparing the Acquisition of Symmetric and Nonsymmetric Conditional Relations in a Capuchin Monkey

Filho

Silva

Velasco³

et al. 2016

Int. j. psychol. res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Article history: Received: 15-04-2016 Revised: 29-06-2016 Accepted: 12-08-2016 Key words: conditional discrimination; equivalence class formation; symmetry; Sapajus sppThe present study presents a procedure to assess the property of symmetry by comparing the acquisition of conditional relations that are consistent and inconsistent with this property in a capuchin monkey (Sapajus spp.). One young male monkey underwent arbitrary matching-to-sample training. The experiment had four phases: Phase 1.1 (establishing A1B1 and A2B2 relations), Phase 1.2 (reinforcing B1A1 and B2A2 relations, consistent with the property of symmetry), Phase 2.1 (establishing A3B3 and A4B4 relations), and Phase 2.2 (reinforcing B3A4 and B4A3 relations, inconsistent with the property of symmetry). A comparison between Phase 1.2 (consistent) and Phase 2.2 (inconsistent) showed faster acquisition of consistent relations (B1A1 and B2A2) than inconsistent relations (B3A4 and B4A3). The results suggest that the established conditional discriminations may have the property of symmetry and confirm the potential of comparative analysis between the acquisition of conditional discriminations as a promising procedure to evaluate equivalence class formation in nonhuman subjects.

show abstract

It takes time and experience to learn how to interpret gaze in mentalistic terms

Leavens

2006

Inf. Child Develop.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

What capabilities are required for an organism to evince an 'explicit' understanding of gaze as a mentalistic phenomenon? One possibility is that mentalistic interpretations of gaze, like concepts of unseen, supernatural beings, are culturally-specific concepts, acquired through cultural learning. These abstract concepts may either require a shared, symbolic code for intergenerational transmission and therefore be uniquely human cognitive phenomena (like belief in Santa Claus) or, alternatively, language may only facilitate their acquisition. Thus, the possibility remains that other organisms can acquire these mentalistic conceptions of gaze, perhaps over much longer time courses, compared to humans, which would limit to very long-lived species the possibility of acquiring these abstract concepts. Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.Key words: gaze-following; theory of mind; chimpanzees; cultural learning Doherty argues that explicit understanding of gaze follows a complex ontogenetic profile over the first few years of life, in humans (Homo sapiens). This developmental profile is characterized, first, by a sensitivity to direct and averted gaze, later by an ability to follow head-turns and pointing, culminating, at about four years of age, in the ability to explicitly state the focus of attention of a social partner, based on eye-direction alone. Although children younger than four years and chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) clearly follow head-orientation, neither these young children nor chimpanzees, in Doherty's view, are capable of an explicit understanding of the mentalistic significance of gaze.Doherty suggests that, in humans and in contrast to the innate luminance-based system of gaze detection, a learned system 'begins to operate at 3 years.' How can it be that a learning process only begins at three years of life? Well, an obvious way in which mentalistic understanding of gaze can only begin to be learned

show abstract

SYMMETRY AND TRANSITIVITY OF CONDITIONAL RELATIONS IN MONKEYS (CEBUS APELLA) AND PIGEONS (COLUMBA LIVIA)

Cited by 195 publications

References 20 publications

Emergent relations in pigeons following training with temporal samples

Emergent relations in pigeons following training with temporal samples

Assessing Symmetry by Comparing the Acquisition of Symmetric and Nonsymmetric Conditional Relations in a Capuchin Monkey

It takes time and experience to learn how to interpret gaze in mentalistic terms

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About