Acquisition and Transfer of Zero-Delay Matching

Cumming, William W.; Berryman, Robert; Cohen, Leila R.

doi:10.2466/pr0.1965.17.2.435

Cited by 99 publications

(57 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…That is, the operation of instrumental mediation during the pre choice delay period may be facilitated by the existence of different response topographies to the conditional cues already determined by the specific reinforceing agents. This analysis, which places emphasis upon the response-reinforcer relation, is consistent with the theories and data of a number of workers (e.g., Cumming, Berryman, & Cohen, 1965;Lawrence, 1963;Schoenfeld & Cumming, 1963). …”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 62%

Two-choice conditional discrimination performance of pigeons as a function of reward expectancy, prechoice delay, and domesticity

Brodigan

Peterson

1976

Animal Learning & Behavior

112

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In a discrete-trial two-choice conditional discrimination task, pigeons which received food for a correct choice following the presentation of one cue and water for a correct choice following another cue performed better than pigeons which received food and water equally often in both cases when delays of several seconds intervened between the conditional cue and choice stimuli presentations. These results suggest that feedback properties of reinforcer-specific. expectancies cB:n be impor~nt in conditional discrimination learning in pigeons. An additional findmg was that wlld-caught pigeons regularly exhibited a higher percentage of correct choices than domestic subjects.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 62%

Two-choice conditional discrimination performance of pigeons as a function of reward expectancy, prechoice delay, and domesticity

Brodigan

Peterson

1976

Animal Learning & Behavior

112

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These behavior chains are acquired and maintained via the law of effect because they are instrumental in obtaining reinforcers. Blough (1959) appears to have been the first to suggest this hypothesis in connection with delayed conditional discrimination performance in pigeons, but the same idea has been expressed by numerous other workers (e.g., Cumming, Berryman, & Cohen, 1965;Lawrence, 1963;Schoenfeld & Cumming, 1963). In support of the hypothesis, recent evidence has indicated that differential response requirements (defined either topographically or by schedule) to the cues in conditional discrimination tasks promote higher levels of discrimination performance than are obtained under nondifferential procedures (e.g., Cohen, Looney, Brady, & Aucella, 1976;Eckerman, 1970;Shimp & Moffitt, 1977).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 78%

Expectancies as mediators in the differential-reward conditional discrimination performance of pigeons

Peterson

Wheeler

Armstrong

1978

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…For example, early tests with pigeons uniformly failed to find MTS abstract-concept learning Cumming & Berryman, 1961;Cumming et al, 1965;D'Amato et al, 1985;Farthing & Opuda, 1974;Holmes, 1979). Indeed, these failures of MTS abstract-concept learning by pigeons provided a major stimulus for Premack's (1978) article.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mechanisms of same-different abstract-concept learning by rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta).

Katz¹,

Wright²,

Bachevalier³

2002

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes

106

140

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Experiments with 9 rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta) showed, for the first time, that abstract-concept learning varied with the training stimulus set size. In a same/different task, monkeys required to touch a top picture before choosing a bottom picture (same) or white rectangle (different) learned rapidly. Monkeys not required to touch the top picture or presented with the top picture for a fixed time learned slowly or not at all. No abstract-concept learning occurred after 8-item training but progressively improved with larger set sizes and was complete following 128-item training. A control monkey with a constant 8-item set ruled out repeated training and testing. Contrary to the unique-species account, it is argued that different species have quantitative, not qualitative, differences in abstract-concept learning.Abstract concepts are the basis of much of our so-called higher order cognitive processing (e.g., language and mathematics). Abstract concepts are rules about relationships such as identity or sameness. Children apparently develop cognition in stages and expand their abstract concept of sameness to include number length, area, and volume (Piaget & Inhelder, 1966/1969. Indeed, William James (1890/1950) declared that our "sense of sameness is the very keel and backbone of our thinking" (p. 459). In the laboratory, the abstract concept of sameness is usually studied in matching-to-sample (MTS) or same/different (S/D) tasks. In MTS, subjects typically view a sample stimulus and then choose one of two comparison stimuli, with the correct choice being the comparison that matches the sample. In S/D, subjects view a pair of stimuli and then make one of two responses to indicate whether the stimuli are the same or different. The determination of abstractconcept learning in both cases is accurate performance with novel test stimuli. Accurate performance with novel stimuli means that the subject has learned an abstract rule that transcends the particular training stimuli. Such transfer performance is what makes abstract-concept learning unique and different from other forms of concept learning.Abstract concepts are different from what are called "natural" concepts. Natural concepts are categories of items bound by absolute features of objects such as cars, chairs, flowers, person, water, or trees (e.g., Bhatt, Wasserman, Reynolds, & Knauss, 1988;Herrnstein, Loveland, & Cable, 1976;Roberts & Mazmanian, 1988). Natural concepts involve learning specific features shared by a class or category of items (e.g., prototype). By contrast, abstract concepts do not involve learning specific stimulus features. Instead, they involve learning the relationships between items. Thus, abstract concepts involve relational learning as opposed to the item-specific learning of natural-concept learning.

show abstract

Acquisition and Transfer of Zero-Delay Matching

Cited by 99 publications

References 3 publications

Two-choice conditional discrimination performance of pigeons as a function of reward expectancy, prechoice delay, and domesticity

Two-choice conditional discrimination performance of pigeons as a function of reward expectancy, prechoice delay, and domesticity

Expectancies as mediators in the differential-reward conditional discrimination performance of pigeons

Mechanisms of same-different abstract-concept learning by rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta).

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About