Associative Symmetry by Pigeons After Few‐exemplar Training

Abstract

The present experiment investigated whether pigeons can show associative symmetry on a two-alternative matching-to-sample procedure. The procedure consisted of a within-subject sequence of training and testing with reinforcement, and it provided (a) exemplars of symmetrical responding, and (b) all prerequisite discriminations among test samples and comparisons. After pigeons had learned two arbitrary-matching tasks (A-B and C-D), they were given a reinforced symmetry test for half of the baseline relations (B1-A1 and D1-C1). To control for the effects of reinforcement during testing, two novel, nonsymmetrical responses were concurrently reinforced using the other baseline stimuli (D2-A2 and B2-C2). Pigeons matched at chance on both types of relations, thus indicating no evidence for symmetry. These symmetrical and nonsymmetrical relations were then directly trained in order to provide exemplars of symmetry and all prerequisite discriminations for a second test. The symmetrical test relations were now B2-A2 and D2-C2 and the nonsymmetrical relations were D1-A1 and B1-C1. On this test, 1 pigeon showed clear evidence of symmetry, 2 pigeons showed weak evidence, and 1 pigeon showed no evidence. The previous training of all prerequisite discriminations among stimuli, and the within-subject control for testing with reinforcement seem to have set favorable conditions for the emergence of symmetry in nonhumans. However, the variability across subjects shows that methodological variables still remain to be controlled.

Emergent relations in pigeons following training with temporal samples

“…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).…”

“…Proposed by Velasco et al (2010), the approach compares the acquisition of two conditional relations, one between two stimuli presumably associated by prior training, and another between two stimuli presumably not associated by prior training. The four stimuli are all equally familiar to the subjects.…”

“…If this similarity changes the sources of stimulus control established during prior training, the subjects are likely to fail the tests for emergent relations (see Dube & McIlvane, 1996;Galvão et al, 1992;Kuno et al, 1994;. Because the approach of Velasco et al compares the speed of learning of two conditional relations within subjects, it increases the study's sensitivity with respect to the more common between-subjects design (see Velasco et al, 2010, for further discussion of design issues in tests of emergent relations).…”

Effects of Echoic Teaching Combined with Basic Reading Repertoires on Word Naming in Children with Intellectual Disabilities

“…Resende, Elias, & Goyos, 2012;Zaine, Domeniconi, & de Rose, 2014), or these consequences were specifi cally used for the choices considered correct (e.g. Domeniconi, 2002;Schusterman & Kastak, 1993;Velasco, Huziwara, Machado, & Tomanari, 2010). Another way to plan the verification of learning is through alternating between reinforced and unreinforced trials and gradually moving from reinforcing consequences to the tests in extinction (e.g.…”

Efeitos do ensino do ecoico aliado a repertórios básicos de leitura sobre a nomeação de palavras em crianças com deficiência intelectual

“…Resende, Elias, & Goyos, 2012;Zaine, Domeniconi, & de Rose, 2014), ou se utiliza dessas consequências especifi camente para as escolhas consideradas corretas (e.g. Domeniconi, 2002;Schusterman & Kastak, 1993;Velasco, Huziwara, Machado, & Tomanari, 2010). Outra forma de se planejar a verifi cação da aprendizagem é por meio da alternância entre tentativas reforçadas e não reforçadas e do esvanecimento da consequência reforçadora até chegar a testes em extinção (e.g.…”