Evidence for Response Membership in Stimulus Classes by Pigeons

Abstract

Response membership in pigeons’ stimulus class formation was evaluated using associative symmetry and class expansion tests. In Experiment 1, pigeons learned hue-hue (AA) and form-form (BB) successive matching plus a modified hue-form (AB) task in which reinforcement was contingent upon a left versus right side-key response after the positive AB sequences. On subsequent BA (symmetry) probe trials, pigeons responded more often to the comparisons on the reverse of the positive than negative AB sequences and, more importantly, preferentially pecked the side key consistent with symmetry after the reversed positive sequences. In Experiment 2, the original three baseline tasks were supplemented by dot-white (CC) successive matching in which reinforcement was contingent upon a left versus right side-key response after the positive CC sequences. Class expansion was then tested by presenting non-reinforced CA and CB successive matching probes. Comparison response rates were mostly non-differential on CA probes but were uniformly higher on CB probes that consisted of the C samples and B comparisons from the same, hypothesized class. Together, these results provide evidence that responses can become members of stimulus classes, as predicted by Urcuioli’s (2008) theory of pigeons’ stimulus-class formation and Sidman’s (2000) theory of equivalence.

Comparative cognition: An approach whose time has come

“…For the case of transfer of training as presented in Figure , it is assumed that the emergent relations that develop between samples trained to the same comparisons are accounted for by the joint presence of transitivity and symmetry (e.g., the trained relation between red and circle and the inferred relation between circle and vertical lines because the trained relation was from vertical lines to circle). However, there is minimal direct evidence for the development either of emergent transitive relations (e.g., Steirn, Jackson‐Smith, & Zentall, , who found direct evidence for transitive relations on the first test session of only 55.1%) or of emergent symmetrical relations in pigeons (Sidman, Rauzin, Lazar, Cunningham, Tailby, & Carrigan, ; Zentall, Sherburne, & Steirn, , who found direct evidence for symmetrical relations on the first 16 test trials of only 53.1%; but see studies by Frank & Wasserman, and Urcuioli, Jones, & Lionello‐DeNolf, , using a successive matching procedure in which each sample is followed by a single comparison stimulus). However, the effects that have been reported are certainly not large enough to account for the robust functional equivalence effects that have been found (see e.g., Urcuioli et al, , who found 71.9% transfer of training on the first 16 test trials).…”

Go forth and be variable

“…Likewise, these researchers from the 1960s would not have guessed that this extended research line would subsequently be combined with findings in the stimulus equivalence (and other relational responding) literature, to influence the writing of those who would affect the direction of contemporary clinical psychology (e.g., Hayes, Strosahl, & Wilson, 1999. Standing in 2013 and looking on contemporary EAB research, one might question the utility of seemingly esoteric research on, for example, the acquisition of stimulus-stimulus relations by nonhumans (e.g., Urcuioli, Jones, & Lionello-DeNolf, 2013). However, when one closely reads and considers the models presented in these papers, one can see how they advance a fundamental understanding of relating behavior.…”

“…However, when one closely reads and considers the models presented in these papers, one can see how they advance a fundamental understanding of relating behavior. Predicting the future is difficult, but as I read papers like Urcuioli et al (2013), I do not have to stretch my imagination too much to consider their translational potential in an area as important as teaching humans to read (Saunders, 2011).…”

“…Third, and quite contrary to Vyse's assessment, I actually think that some of the contemporary research conducted in operant chambers in EAB is ground breaking and could, 20 years from now, prove to be more important than the research conducted in the golden age of EAB. I cannot possibly list every instance of this ground-breaking research but, beyond the Urcuioli et al (2013) paper mentioned above (the latest in this important research line being conducted in the Urcuioli lab), I would point to the ongoing empirical debates about the principle at the very core of behavior analysis: reinforcement. For those who are unfamiliar with these debates, a number of researchers have presented findings in behavior-analytic and other journals suggesting that reinforcers (primary and secondary) do not strengthen or increase the probability of the behavior that they follow (e.g., Davison & Baum, 2006;Krä geloh, Davison, & Elliffe, 2005;Mazur & Biondi, 2013;Shahan & Podlesnik, 2008).…”

Symmetry in the pigeon with sample and comparison stimuli in different locations

“…On the one hand, the absence of symmetry after training on two‐alternative symbolic MTS (Hogan & Zentall, ; Lionello‐DeNolf & Urcuioli, ; Urcuioli, , Experiments 1A, 1B, and 2) would seem to suggest that presenting the sample and comparison stimuli in successive matching in different locations would be a “deal breaker”, so to speak—that is, that symmetry would not emerge under these conditions. On the other hand, assuming that spatial location, like temporal/ordinal position, is part of the functional matching stimuli (see, for example, Urcuioli, Jones, & Lionello‐DeNolf, ), it is possible to create a set of successive matching contingencies involving different sample and comparison locations that, theoretically, should yield symmetry. This experiment was designed to test this prediction.…”