Emergent Identity Matching After Successive Matching Training. Ii: Reflexivity or Transitivity?

Abstract

Three experiments evaluated whether the apparent reflexivity effect reported by Sweeney and Urcuioli (2010) for pigeons might, in fact, be transitivity. In Experiment 1, pigeons learned symmetrically reinforced hue-form (A-B) and form-hue (B-A) successive matching. Those also trained on form-form (B-B) matching responded more to hue comparisons that matched their preceding samples on subsequent hue-hue (A-A) probe trials. By contrast, most pigeons trained on just A-B and B-A matching did not show this effect; but some did--a finding consistent with transitivity. Experiment 2 showed that the latter pigeons also responded more to form comparisons that matched their preceding samples on form-form (B-B) probe trials. Experiment 3 tested the prediction that hue-hue matching versus hue-hue oddity, respectively, should emerge after symmetrically versus asymmetrically reinforced arbitrary matching relations if those relations are truly transitive. For the few pigeons showing an emergent effect, comparison response rates were higher when a probe-trial comparison matched its preceding sample independently of the baseline contingencies. These results indicate neither a reflexivity nor a transitivity effect but, rather, a possible identity bias.

Transitive and anti-transitive emergent relations in pigeons: Support for a theory of stimulus-class formation

“…The results also extend some previous experiments by Urcuioli and Swisher (2012a) in which pigeons concurrently trained on AB, BA, and BB-identity successive matching later exhibited emergent AA matching in testing. Although that finding can be viewed as an instance of reflexivity (Sweeney & Urcuioli, 2010), it can also be viewed as an instance of transitivity given the common nominal stimulus shared by the AB and BA baseline relations that were part of the training contingencies (although see Urcuioli & Swisher, 2012a, Experiment 3 for conflicting results).…”

“…Although that finding can be viewed as an instance of reflexivity (Sweeney & Urcuioli, 2010), it can also be viewed as an instance of transitivity given the common nominal stimulus shared by the AB and BA baseline relations that were part of the training contingencies (although see Urcuioli & Swisher, 2012a, Experiment 3 for conflicting results). Here, there is no ambiguity in labeling the emergent relations seen in testing because the sample and comparison stimuli comprising the probe trials were not physically identical to one another as they were in Urcuioli and Swisher (2012a) and related studies (Sweeney & Urcuioli, 2010; Urcuioli, 2011). …”

Emergent identity but not symmetry following successive olfactory discrimination training in rats

“…In most previous studies, training with a more extensive set of exemplars is required in order to produce generalized matching or nonmatching (Bodily, Katz & Wright, ; Daniel, Wright & Katz, ; Katz & Wright, ) and so emergent identity after four exemplars is surprising and merits additional research attention. Finally, it should be added that the finding of generalized identity occurred here without the sort of training requirements that would be predicted if the temporal position of the odor were part of the functional stimulus (Sweeney & Urcuioli, ; Urcuioli, ; Urcuioli & Swisher, ). That is, during the generalized identity probes of the present study, rats responded at a high rate to novel odors on matching trials despite the lack of a history of reinforcement with those stimuli in either the sample or comparison position.…”

Reflexivity without identity matching training: A first demonstration

“…After training these AB hue–form, BA form–hue, and BB form–form relations, AA (hue–hue) reflexivity is predicted (Sweeney & Urcuioli, ; Urcuioli & Swisher, ). In other words, the two 4‐member classes shown in Figure c contain not only the elements of the explicitly trained baseline relations, but also the elements of two untrained relations: red sample (R1) and red comparison (R2), and green sample (G1) and green comparison (G2).…”