STIMULUS CONTROL IN FIXED RATIO MA TCHING‐TO‐SAMPLE<sup>1</sup>

Mintz, Donald E.; Mourer, Dennis J.; Weinberg, Laura S.

doi:10.1901/jeab.1966.9-627

Cited by 23 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Experiment III demonstrated that accuracy decreased immediately after reinforcement when responding was required on every trial, as reported in research on matching to sample by Nevin et al (1963) and recently replicated by Mintz, Mourer, and Weinberg (1966 …”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 56%

EFFECTS OF REINFORCEMENT SCHEDULING ON SIMULTANEOUS DISCRIMINATION PERFORMANCE¹

Nevin

1967

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pigeons were trained on a discrete‐trials, simultaneous discrimination procedure, with confusable stimuli such that asymptotic performance was about 85% correct. Trials were terminated if no response occurred within 2 sec of stimulus onset, so that probability of responding was free to vary. The schedule of reinforcement for correct responses was varied, with the following results: (1) there was no relation between frequency of reinforcement and accuracy of responding. (2) In extinction, the probability of responding fell to low levels, but accuracy remained roughly constant. (3) When reinforcement was available after a fixed number of trials or after a fixed number of correct responses, the probability of responding increased with successive trials after reinforcement, but accuracy was generally constant. (4) When every fifth correct response was reinforced, accuracy decreased immediately after reinforcement if the birds were required to respond on every trial.

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 56%

EFFECTS OF REINFORCEMENT SCHEDULING ON SIMULTANEOUS DISCRIMINATION PERFORMANCE¹

Nevin

1967

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…And PA performance was affected by the trial's location within the The upper data point on the f"ust trial for S-2750 is based on all latencies during the last half of each of the f"ma1 10 sessions; the lower data point excludes one of the latencies that had a duration of more than 13 min. 364 ratio; performance on the PA trials, in agreement with that on various other discrimination tasks [such as, a simple three-choice discrimination (Zeiler, 1968) and a matching-to-sample task (Nevin, Cumming, & Berryman, 1963;Mintz, Mourer, & Weinberg, 1966») was poorest early in the ratio.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 75%

“…As with simple operants (e.g., Ferster & Skinner, 1957) and various other types of discrimination problems (e.g., Zeiler, 1968;Nevin, et al, 1963;Mintz et al, 1966), the fIrst response of the ratio had the longest latency. In contrast with these previous FR studies, which, in general, have found a constant response rate or latency once the flIst response is executed, subsequent response latencies in the present study gradually decreased (this was most clearly seen in S-2750) .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Reinforcement of ambiguous-cue problem performance under various across trial fixed-ratio schedules

Richards¹

1973

Bull. Psychon. Soc.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two pigeons were trained on the two-choice ambiguous-cue problem that contained two types of trials. On PA trials, choice of P (the positive stimulus) is reinforced and choice of A (the ambiguous stimulus) is not reinforced; on NA trials, choice of A is reinforced and choice of N (the negative stimulus) is not reinforced. Under the various across-trial fixed-ratio (FR) schedules of reinforcement, NA performance remained superior to P A performance. P A performance was poorer under FR 12 than FR 1; NA performance, however, was not affected by the size of the FR. Similarly, only P A performance showed any change as a function of the trial's location within the ratio-it was poorest early in the ratio.The. most widely studied simultaneous discrimination task presents a S with only two stimuli. Choice of one stimulus, the positive stimulus (P), is reinforced and choice of the other stimulus, the negative stimulus (N), is not reinforced. An interesting variant of this two-choice problem, the ambiguous-cue problem, involves a third stimulus, an ambiguous stimulus (A). Specifically, the ambiguous-cue problem contains two types of trials-PA trials and NA trials. On PA trials, P and A are simultaneously presented; the choice of Pis reinforced and the choice of A is not reinforced. On NA trials, N and A are simultaneously presented; the choice of A is reinforced and the choice of N is not reinforced. The consistent finding, when the stimuli possess distinctive features, has been that NA trials are learned more quickly and are learned to a higher terminal level than PA trials. This finding has been reported in monkeys (Leary, 1958;Boyer, Polidora, Fletcher, & Woodruff, 1966;Fletcher, Grogg, & Garske, 1968; Retcher & Garske, 1972;Boyer & Polidora, 1972), retarded children (Zeaman & House, 1962; Retcher et al, 1968), normal children (Fletcher et aI, 1968), and most recently in pigeons (Richards, 1973).In all previous ambiguous-cue studies, the across-trial schedule of reinforcement has been continuous reinforcement. That is, reinforcement was received on every trial if the correct response was made. The present study examined ambiguous-cue problem performance as a function of various fixed ratio (FR) schedules; an FR schedule reinforces every nth response. Within the context of the ambiguous-cue problem, an FR across-trial schedule of reinforcement makes reinforcement available on every nth trial. The present experiment attempted to determine if ambiguous-cue *This research was supported in part by BSSG Grant 5 SO 5 RR 07127-03. The author would like to thank David Schwanz and William M. Hittesdorf for their assistance in collecting the data. The paper is sponsored by Henry A. Cross. who takes full editorial responsibility for it. 362 problem performance could be maintained by such an intermittent schedule and, if so, at what level. Also of interest were possible changes in accuracy and response latency as a function of the trial's location within the ratio, as well as possible differential schedule effects on PA and NA per...

show abstract

“…matches occur as the responding proceeds across the ratio to a subsequent reinforced match (Ferster, 1960;Mintz et al, 1966;.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

FIXED‐RATIO AND FIXED‐INTERVAL SCHEDULE CONTROL OF MATCHING‐TO‐SAMPLE ERRORS BY CHILDREN¹

Davidson

Osborne

1974

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nine children, ages 4 through 7 yr, matched-to-sample on fixed-ratio, fixed-interval, variable-ratio, and variable-interval schedules of reinforcement. Simultaneous, zero-delay, and 2-sec delay matching were employed. Distributions of errors, in which the greatest number of errors occurred at the ordinal position immediately after reinforcement with fewer errors occurring at subsequent positions in the ratio, were produced by six of six children on fixed-ratio schedules for zero-delay and both of two children for 2-sec delay matching. Only two children of seven produced similar error distributions on simultaneous matching for fixed-ratio reinforcement. Variable-ratio schedules produced slightly lower accuracy for most subjects and no systematic error patterns for any subject. Error distributions occurred for all of the five children who experienced fixed-interval schedules for zero-delay matching. Peak error production occurred in the second fourth of the interval. Similar patterns were not produced on variable-interval schedules of equal reinforcement density. Schedule control of complex discriminated operants in children resembles control over similar responses of nonhuman animals.Fixed-ratio and fixed-interval schedules of reinforcement have been shown to exert control over the accuracy of nonhuman free-operant performance (Bigelow, 1971;Birch, 1964;Zeiler, 1968;and Zeiler, 1970), discrete-trial behavior (Nevin, 1967) and complex discriminated operants (Boren and Gollub, 1972;

show abstract

STIMULUS CONTROL IN FIXED RATIO MA TCHING‐TO‐SAMPLE¹

Cited by 23 publications

References 5 publications

EFFECTS OF REINFORCEMENT SCHEDULING ON SIMULTANEOUS DISCRIMINATION PERFORMANCE¹

EFFECTS OF REINFORCEMENT SCHEDULING ON SIMULTANEOUS DISCRIMINATION PERFORMANCE¹

Reinforcement of ambiguous-cue problem performance under various across trial fixed-ratio schedules

FIXED‐RATIO AND FIXED‐INTERVAL SCHEDULE CONTROL OF MATCHING‐TO‐SAMPLE ERRORS BY CHILDREN¹

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

STIMULUS CONTROL IN FIXED RATIO MA TCHING‐TO‐SAMPLE1

Cited by 23 publications

References 5 publications

EFFECTS OF REINFORCEMENT SCHEDULING ON SIMULTANEOUS DISCRIMINATION PERFORMANCE1

EFFECTS OF REINFORCEMENT SCHEDULING ON SIMULTANEOUS DISCRIMINATION PERFORMANCE1

Reinforcement of ambiguous-cue problem performance under various across trial fixed-ratio schedules

FIXED‐RATIO AND FIXED‐INTERVAL SCHEDULE CONTROL OF MATCHING‐TO‐SAMPLE ERRORS BY CHILDREN1

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

STIMULUS CONTROL IN FIXED RATIO MA TCHING‐TO‐SAMPLE¹

EFFECTS OF REINFORCEMENT SCHEDULING ON SIMULTANEOUS DISCRIMINATION PERFORMANCE¹

EFFECTS OF REINFORCEMENT SCHEDULING ON SIMULTANEOUS DISCRIMINATION PERFORMANCE¹

FIXED‐RATIO AND FIXED‐INTERVAL SCHEDULE CONTROL OF MATCHING‐TO‐SAMPLE ERRORS BY CHILDREN¹