The structure of pigeon multiple-class same-different learning.
(25/805)
Three experiments examined the structure of the decision framework used by pigeons in learning a multiple-class same-different task. Using a same-different choice task requiring the discrimination of odd-item different displays (one or more of the display's component elements differed) from same displays (all display components identical), pigeons were concurrently trained with sets of four discriminable display types. In each experiment, the consistent group was tested such that the same and different displays of four display types were consistently mapped onto their choice alternatives. The inconsistent group received a conflicting mapping of the same and different displays and the choice alternatives that differed across the four display types but were consistent within a display type. Experiment 1 tested experienced pigeons, and Experiment 2 tested naive pigeons. In both experiments, the consistent group learned their discrimination faster and to a higher level of choice accuracy than did the inconsistent group, which performed poorly in general. Only in the consistent group was the discrimination transferred to novel stimuli, indicative of concept formation in that group. A third experiment documented that the different display classes were discriminable from one another. These results suggest that pigeons attempt to generate a single discriminative rule when learning this type of task, and that this general rule can cover a large variety of stimulus elements and organizations, consistent with previous evidence suggesting that pigeons may be capable of learning relatively unbounded relational same-different concepts. (+info)
Brief presentations are sufficient for pigeons to discriminate arrays of same and different stimuli.
(26/805)
Four pigeons first learned to discriminate 16-item arrays of same from different pictorial stimuli. They were then tested with reduced exposure to the pictorial arrays, brought about by changes in the stimulus viewing requirement under fixed-ratio (FR) and fixed-interval (FI) schedules. Increasing the FR requirement enhanced discriminative performance up to 10 pecks; increasing the FI requirement enhanced discriminative performance up to 5 s. Exposures to the stimulus arrays averaging only 2 s supported reliable discrimination. Pigeons thus discriminate same from different stimuli with considerable speed, suggesting that same-different discrimination behavior is of substantial adaptive significance. (+info)
A functional-analytic model of analogy: a relational frame analysis.
(27/805)
The aim of this study was to explore a behavior-analytic model of analogical reasoning, defined as the discrimination of formal similarity via equivalence-equivalence responding. In Experiment 1, adult humans were trained and tested for the formation of four three-member equivalence relations: A1-B1-C1, A2-B2-C2, A3-B3-C3, and A4-B4-C4. The B and C stimuli were three-letter nonsense syllables, and the A stimulus was a colored shape. Subjects were then successfully tested for equivalence-equivalence responding (e.g., matching B1/C1 to B2/C2 rather than B3/C4). These tasks were designed such that equivalence-equivalence responding might allow subjects to discriminate a physical similarity between the relations involved. Some participants (color subjects) received only equivalence-equivalence tasks in which they might discriminate a color relation, whereas others (shape subjects) were given tasks in which they might discriminate a shape relation. A control group received both types of task. In a subsequent test for the discrimination of formal similarity, color subjects matched according to color, shape subjects matched according to shape, and the control group showed no consistent matching pattern. In Experiment 2, adult humans showed a transformation of the functions of a block-sorting task via this basic model of analogy. Empirical and conceptual issues related to these results are discussed. (+info)
A new approach to the formation of equivalence classes in pigeons.
(28/805)
Four pigeons were given simultaneous discrimination training with visual patterns arbitrarily divided into two sets, with the stimuli in one set designated A1, B1, C1, and D1 and those in the other set designated A2, B2, C2, and D2. In sequentially introduced training phases, the pigeons were exposed to a series of reversals to establish AB and then CD equivalences. In subsequent testing sessions, a subset of stimuli from one set served as positive stimuli and those from the other set as negative stimuli on training trials, and transfer of the reinforced relation to other members of the sets was tested with nonreinforced probe trials. The pigeons were trained further on AC and BD equivalences and then were tested for the emergence of untrained AD and BC equivalences. Two of the 4 pigeons exhibited the emergence of one of these untrained equivalences, evidence for the emergence of transitive relations. This finding suggests that the pigeons established three-member functional equivalence classes by incorporating separately trained multiple equivalence relations. Repeated reversal training and probe testing enabled us to explore the formation and expansion of functional equivalence classes in pigeons. (+info)
The development of emergent differential sample behavior in pigeons.
(29/805)
Three experiments attempted to replicate Manabe, Kawashima, and Staddon's (1995) finding of emergent differential sample behavior in budgerigars that has been interpreted as evidence of functional equivalence class formation. In Experiments 1 and 2, pigeons initially learned two-sample/ two-alternative matching to sample in which comparison presentation was contingent on pecking one sample on a differential-reinforcement-of-low-rate (DRL) schedule and the other on a fixed-ratio (FR) schedule. Later, two new samples were added to the task. Comparison presentation on these trials occurred after the first sample peck following a predetermined interval (Experiment 1) or after completion of either the DRL or FR requirement, whichever occurred first (Experiment 2). Experiment 1 found no evidence for emergent spaced versus rapid responding to the new samples as they established conditional control over the familiar choices. By contrast, differential responding did emerge for some pigeons in Experiment 2, with responding to each new sample coinciding with the pattern explicitly conditioned to the original sample occasioning the same comparison choice. This emergent effect, however, disappeared for most pigeons with continued training. Experiment 3 systematically replicated Experiment 2 using differential peck location as the sample behavior. Differential location pecking emerged to the new samples for most pigeons and remained intact throughout training. Our findings demonstrate a viable pigeon analogue to the budgerigar emergent calling paradigm and are discussed in terms of equivalence- and non-equivalence-based processes. (+info)
Contextual control of stimulus generalization and stimulus equivalence in hierarchical categorization.
(30/805)
The purpose of this study was to determine whether hierarchical categorization would result from a combination of contextually controlled conditional discrimination training, stimulus generalization, and stimulus equivalence. First, differential selection responses to a specific stimulus feature were brought under contextual control. This contextual control was hierarchical in that stimuli at the top of the hierarchy all evoked one response, whereas those at the bottom each evoked different responses. The evocative functions of these stimuli generalized in predictable ways along a dimension of physical similarity. Then, these functions were indirectly acquired by a set of nonsense syllables that were related via transitivity relations to the originally trained stimuli. These nonsense syllables effectively served as names for the different stimulus classes within each level of the hierarchy. (+info)
Sea lions and equivalence: expanding classes by exclusion.
(31/805)
Experiments have shown that human and nonhuman subjects are capable of performing new arbitrary stimulus-stimulus relations without error. When subjects that are experienced with matching-to-sample procedures are presented with a novel sample, a novel comparison, and a familiar comparison, most respond by correctly selecting the novel comparison in the presence of the new sample. This exclusion paradigm was expanded with two California sea lions that had previously formed two 10-member equivalence classes in a matching-to-sample procedure. Rather than being presented with a novel sample on a given trial, the sea lions were presented with a randomly selected familiar member of one class as the sample. One of the comparisons was a randomly selected familiar member of the alternative class, and the other was a novel stimulus. When required to choose which comparison matched the sample, the subjects reliably rejected the familiar comparison, and instead selected the unfamiliar one. Next, the sea lions were presented with transfer problems that could not be solved by exclusion; they immediately grouped the new stimuli into the appropriate classes. These findings show that exclusion procedures can rapidly generate new stimulus relations that can be used to expand stimulus classes. (+info)
Stimulus control topographies and tests of symmetry in pigeons.
(32/805)
Pigeons were tested for symmetry after A-B training under conditions designed to avoid problems that may prevent its emergence, namely the change of stimulus location in testing relative to training and the lack of requisite discrimination training. In Experiment 1, samples appeared in two locations during baseline training to minimize the impact of stimulus location. Experiments 2 and 3 included multiple-location training along with additional identity and symbolic matching training, respectively, to explicitly train all of the simultaneous and successive stimulus discriminations required for testing. Experiment 4 provided reinforcement for symmetrical matching relations with some stimulus sets (with multiple-location training) prior to symmetry testing with different sets. In all experiments, pigeons showed no evidence of symmetry despite the fact that baseline (A-B) matching transferred to novel locations. Additional tests for reflexivity (Experiment 2) yielded similar outcomes. These results indicate that the change in stimulus location is not the sole reason that pigeons do not show symmetry and increase the plausibility of arguments that symmetry and other indexes of stimulus equivalence may be beyond the capabilities of the pigeon. (+info)