ANALYSIS OF RESPONSE RATES DURING STIMULUS GENERALIZATION 1

When a well-learned circle versus ellipse discrimination was made impossibly difficult for the subjects (rhesus monkeys), the controlling stimulus-response topographies were replaced by competing topographies. The identification of two training conditions sufficient to reinstate the original discrimination permitted the following inferences: the original controlling topography had merely decreased in probability of occurrence, whereas the "strength" of the stimulus-response relation remained unchanged; discriminations along the apparently continuous circle-ellipse dimension actually involved several distinct stimulus-control topographies.Ray has offered evidence that topography and probability of an operant response have analogies in the topography and probability of a controlling stimulus-response relation. "When an organism learns to respond to a new stimulus, . . . this falls in the category of creating a new stimulus-response relation, a new stimulus-control topography" (Ray, 1969). Stimulus-control topography does not, of course, refer to a spatial configuration, but merely identifies the specific features of the stimulus (and the response) that comprise the actual behavioral unit. The term focuses attention on the truly controlling properties of the stimulus (and on the actual controlled response) rather than the stimulus and response as operationally defined in the reinforcement dependency. When the experimenter's definition and the actual controlling events are identical, "stimulus-control topography" and "controlling stimulus-response relation" are synonymous. The distinction is functional, not merely typological. It permits one to ask, of any change in stimulus control, whether that change involved a new stimulus-control topography or whether it represented only a change

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 89%

THE REMOVAL AND RESTORATION OF STIMULUS CONTROL¹

Stoddard

Sidman

1971

“…Ferster & Skinner, 1957). The first study investigated the contribution of multiple controlling stimulus-response relations in the analysis of stimulus generalization by using schedules to establish different response rates (Migler & Millenson, 1969). The second study used the characteristic patterns of responding engendered by different reinforcement schedules as the response dimension (Nelson & Farthing, 1973).…”

Section: Response Dimensions Engendered By Schedules Ofreinforcementmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The second study used the characteristic patterns of responding engendered by different reinforcement schedules as the response dimension (Nelson & Farthing, 1973). Migler and Millenson (1969) differentiated response rates by programming two different parameter values of the same reinforcement schedule. In the presence of a 2.5-cps stimulus, responses on a lever to the left of the food tray were reinforced on a VI 30-s schedule of reinforcement.…”

Section: Response Dimensions Engendered By Schedules Ofreinforcementmentioning

confidence: 99%

THE QUANTAL NATURE OF CONTROLLING STIMULUS‐RESPONSE RELATIONS AS MEASURED IN TESTS OF STIMULUS GENERALIZATION¹

Bickel

Etzel

1985

This paper is a selective review of research that addresses the validity of two interpretations of stimulus generalization. One interpretation, referred to as the descriptive stimulus-control interpretation, proposes that during stimulus generalization a continuous relation exists between stimulus and response dimensions. The other interpretation, referred to as the quantal interpretation, proposes that a stimulus-response relation functions as a unit that may or may not occur. From the latter viewpoint, the continuity typically obtained during generalization tests is deemed to be artifactual and to result from averaging across multiple controlling stimulus-response relations. Studies examining the contribution of these multiple relations to generalization gradients are reviewed. With few exceptions, the quantal interpretation appears to better characterize the results of these studies. Implications for peak shift, selection of analytical level, and identification of the behavioral unit are discussed, as well as factors that may determine the acceptability of the quantal interpretation.

“…If the rate of responding is high in the presence of one stimulus, and consistently decreases as stimuli increasingly different from that stimulus are presented, a higher degree of stimulus control is inferred. Much criticism has been levelled at the use of such response rate measures to assess stimulus control (Blough, 1963;Ray and Sidman, 1970;Jenkins, 1965 iors acquired during discriminative training are a primary determinant of subsequently obtained stimulus control functions (Migler, 1964;Migler and Millenson, 1969;Gollub, 1966;Yarczower, Dickson, and Gollub, 1966). This position is supported by the results of studies in which one response was reinforced in the presence of a particular stimulus and a different response was reinforced in the presence of a second stimulus (Cross and Lane, 1962;Risley, 1964;Migler, 1964;Gollub, 1966, Migler andMillenson, 1969;Wildemann and Holland, 1972).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Rather, the previously reinforced responses occur with frequencies dependent upon the physical similarity between the training stimuli and the particular test stimulus. Such findings have led Gollub (1966), Migler (1964), and Migler and Millenson (1969) On the first day, pecking the center key was "autoshaped", using the procedure described by Brown and Jenkins (1968). The Fellows' series (Fellows, 1967 No bias: VI 1-min VI 1-min.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

STIMULUS CONTROL IN A TWO‐CHOICE DISCRIMINATION PROCEDURE¹

Galloway

1973

The relation between performance during discriminative training and subsequently obtained measures of stimulus control was investigated. Pigeons served as experilmental subjects. In the discriminative training phase, a single peck on the center key, transilluminated by a bright or dim white light, resulted in the onset of the side keys, one red and one green. If the center key was brightly lighted, a response on the red side key was correct. A response on the green side key vas correct if the center key was dimly lighted. Correct responses were reinforced on independently arranged variable-interval schedules. Following discriminative training, tests of stimulus control vere administered during which white light of 11 intensities was projected on the center key and responses on the red and green side keys recorded. The proportion of correct responses in the presence of a bright or dim center-key stimulus decreased with decreases in the frequency of reinforcement of correct red or correct green responses, respectively. The slopes of the stimulus control gradients were related to the extent of response bias during training. The greater the bias to respond on the green key, the flatter the gradient showing the proportion of green-key responses to each stimulus and the steeper the corresponding gradient of red-key responses.The control of behavior by exteroceptive stimuli is commonly assessed by comparing response rates in the presence of each stimulus from a set of stimuli differing along a single dimension. If the response rates do not differ in the presence of different stimuli, poor stimulus control is inferred. If the rate of responding is high in the presence of one stimulus, and consistently decreases as stimuli increasingly different from that stimulus are presented, a higher degree of stimulus control is inferred. Much criticism has been levelled at the use of such response rate measures to assess stimulus control (Blough, 1963; Ray and Sidman, 1970;Jenkins, 1965). In the first place, rate of responding may be controlled by factors other than stimulus value, thus masking changes in response probability correlated with changes in stimulus value. A related line of criticism has been developed by several authors, who have suggested that the behav1This paper is based on a dissertation submitted to