Attentional enhancement in matching-to-sample: Facilitation in matching acquisition by sample-discrimination training

Abstract

In three experiments, we examined how matching-to-sample by pigeons is affected by discrimination versus nondifferential training between the matching stimuli. In Experiment lA, pigeons responding differentially to the sample stimuli off-baseline acquired accurate matching performances more rapidly than did pigeons responding nondifferentially to those same stimuli. In Experiment lB, tests involving reversal of the off-baseline requirements demonstrated that the birds were primarily controlled in their matching choices by the sample stimuli. The results of Experiment 2 showed that off-baseline nondifferential training did not retard acquisition relative to comparable training between stimuli unrelated to the matching task. Together, these results suggest that discrimination training can facilitate matching acquisition by enhancing attention to the sample stimuli.Previous studies have shown that pigeons will learn conditional discriminations such as matching-to-sample (MTS) more rapidly if they respond differentially to the conditional (sample) stimuli than if they respond nondifferentially to them (Cohen, Looney, Brady, & Aucella, 1976;Eckerman, 1970;Lydersen & Perkins, 1974;Paul, 1983;Urcuioli, 1984;Zentall, Hogan, Howard, & Moore, 1978). For instance, Cohen et al. (Experiment 2) reported that birds pecking one sample on a differentialreinforcement-of-Iow-rates-of-responding (DRL) schedule and the other on a fixed-ratio (FR) schedule reached high levels of matching accuracy sooner than did controls whose sample-response requirements were the same for both stimuli. One interpretation of this effect and others like it is that discrimination training enhances subjects' attention to the relevant characteristics of the samples (cf.Carter & Eckerman, 1975).My studies of the effects of sample-discrimination training on MTS performance, however, suggest a different interpretation. I found, for example, that pigeons responding differentially to sample stimuli are primarily controlled in their matching choices by their sample-specific behaviors (Urcuioli & Honig, 1980). This suggests that differential sample behaviors might facilitate acquisition simply by providing birds with an additional cue for choice (see also Cohen, Brady, & Lowry, 1981;Hogan, Zentall, & Pace, 1983), an interpretation supported by the results of two subsequent studies. In one study (Urcuioli, 1985), matching acquisition was faster in a group for This research was supported by NIMH Grant MH-38174 and NSF Grant BNS 86-06926 to the first author. We thank Cynthia Adamiec for her assistance in running the subjects. Reprint requests may be addressed to the first author, Department of Psychological Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907. which differential sample responding was correlated with correct choice than in a group for which such responding was uncorrelated with choice. Thus, with sample discriminations equated, the cue properties of the birds' samplespecific behaviors were sufficient to facilitate acquisition. In the other study (...

Discrimination Training Facilitates Pigeons' Performance on One‐trial‐per‐day Delayed Matching of Key Location

“…The third procedural change was made in light of a finding by Urcuioli and Callender (1989). These investigators gave their pigeons off-baseline training to discriminate between the stimuli (colors and line orientations) that served as samples in matching-to-sample training.…”

Reduction of Stimulus Overselectivity With Nonverbal Differential Observing Responses

“…Thus, the response to the samples (touching) is the same for all stimuli. A procedural modification that may improve discrimination is to require differential observing responses (DOR), that is, a different response for each sample stimulus (e.g., Cohen, Brady, & Lowry, 1981;Urcuioli & Callender, 1989). For example, Constantine and Sidman (1975) found that DMTS accuracy with pictures improved in young men with severe mental retardation when they were required to name the sample pictures (cf.…”

Effects of Within‐class Differences in Sample Responding on Acquired Sample Equivalence

“…Furthermore, such discrimination training has long been thought to produce an acquired distinctiveness of cues (cf. Hall, 1991), resulting in facilitation of performance on an orthogonal discrimination involving the same cues (e.g., Lawrence, 1949;Reese, 1972;Urcuioli & Callender, 1989). The present experiments were not structured in a way that would permit a distinctiveness assessment.…”

“…Variation in sample-response requirements amounts to explicit discrimination training between those samples (Urcuioli & Callender, 1989). Furthermore, such discrimination training has long been thought to produce an acquired distinctiveness of cues (cf.…”