EFFECTS OF RESPONSE‐PRODUCED STIMULI UPON CONDITIONAL DISCRIMINATION PERFORMANCE¹

Abstract

In zero-delay matching procedures the performance of three groups of pigeons was examined when exteroceptive stimuli, response-produced stimuli associated with the completion of either of two fixed ratios, or a compound of exteroceptive and response-produced stimuli were available as samples. Exteroceptive samples were found to control a higher level of matching accuracy than response-produced samples, while compound samples controlled a higher level of accuracy than did exteroceptive samples alone. When all subjects were placed on a transfer procedure, during which the previously used red and green samples were replaced by horizontal and vertical lines, the availability of sample-specific fixed-ratios facilitated acquisition of the task.

Sample‐specific Ratio Effects in Matching to Sample

“…Acquisition of matching was facilitated in this condition compared to conditions with nondifferential response requirements. Other studies -have reported similar results (Lydersen & Perkins, 1974;Urcuioli & Honig, 1980) and suggest that response-produced stimulation from the sample-specific behavior constitutes a strong source of control of subsequent choice responses. Specifically, Lydersen and Perkins (1974) gested that the functional sample may be a compound comprised of the schedule-induced response feedback and the exteroceptive stimulus on the sample key.…”

“…Other studies -have reported similar results (Lydersen & Perkins, 1974;Urcuioli & Honig, 1980) and suggest that response-produced stimulation from the sample-specific behavior constitutes a strong source of control of subsequent choice responses. Specifically, Lydersen and Perkins (1974) gested that the functional sample may be a compound comprised of the schedule-induced response feedback and the exteroceptive stimulus on the sample key. On the other hand, Urcuioli and Honig (1980) and Cohen, Brady, and Lowry (1981) suggest that the responseproduced feedback overshadows the exteroceptive stimulus and controls subsequent choice, at least within the conditions of their respective experiments.…”

“…The curves for the higher ratios (FR 23, FR 51) appear close together with no clear indication that performance was more accurate under the FR-51 than under the FR-23 requirement. Thus, although this particular task yielded rather variable data (see also Lydersen & Perkins, 1974), there is some evidence that the high ratios facilitated matching accuracy in the within-subject procedure. However, there is no indication of a continuous function relating accuracy to ratio size.…”

Simple discrimination training and conditional discrimination response

“…On one hand, the facilitating effect of the sample response requirement found in the literature has been replicated (for example, Riesen & Nissen, 1942;Eckerman, 1970;Lyderson & Perkins, 1974;Zentall & Hogan, 1978;Urcuioli & Honig, 1980;Paul, 1983), however, subjects continued behaving in block B as if a conditional discrimination was being trained, although this observation response was not required.…”

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

“…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.…”