TEMPORAL FACTORS INFLUENCING THE PIGEON'S SUCCESSIVE MATCHING‐TO‐SAMPLE PERFORMANCE: SAMPLE DURATION, INTERTRIAL INTERVAL, AND RETENTION INTERVAL<sup>1</sup>

Nelson, Keith R.; Wasserman, Edward A.

doi:10.1901/jeab.1978.30-153

Cited by 113 publications

(111 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Furthermore, assuming exponential decay, trace theory (Roberts & Grant, 1976) predicts that the performance functions of different sample durations ought to be negatively decelerated and convergent. Although Nelson and Wasserman (1978) obtained this result using the go/no-go task, the outcome of studies carried out by Roberts (1972) and Grant (1976), using the more typical choice procedure, did not suggest a convergence of decay functions. It was therefore of interest in this experiment to see how variations in sample length would affect discriminative responding throughout test presentation and at different retention intervals.…”

mentioning

confidence: 76%

“…First, DMTS performance rose with increases in the duration of the sample stimulus (Grant, 1976;Nelson & Wasserman, 1978;Roberts, 1972). Second, DMTS performance fell with increases in the sample- The set of 4-sec sample duration points was shifted to where the highest point here matched its equal on the shifted set of 8-sec sample duration points, and so on.…”

Section: Time (In S) Since Sample Offsetmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…Furthermore, after latency times were subtracted, the mean running rates showed that differential responding still occurred on matching and nonmatching trials. That experiment involved a retention interval of 1 sec, but later studies, also using the go/no-go DMTS procedure, revealed that longer retention intervals can disrupt discriminative performance (Nelson & Wasserman, 1978).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the Nelson and Wasserman (1978) study, for example, test intervals were not divided into subsections, allowing only an overall computation of discriminative performance; in addition, all test intervals were of a fixed, short duration (5 sec). For the present study, test intervals were subdivided, so that the time course of discriminative responding could be recorded in up to six successive 2-sec segments.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Sample duration has been shown to affect discriminative test performance in both choice and go/no-go DMTS procedures (e.g., Nelson & Wasserman, 1978;Roberts & Grant, 1976). Generally, performance tends to improve with longer sample durations.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Effects of sample duration, retention interval, and passage of time in the test on pigeons’ matching-to-sample performance

Guttenberger

Wasserman

1985

Animal Learning & Behavior

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Four pigeons served as subjects in an experiment using the go/no-go delayed matching-to-sample paradigm. The go/no-go method was used because it permits the experimenter to track the time course of discriminative performance throughout the test period, unlike the conventional choice matching procedure. It was found that discriminative test performance increased with longer sample durations; performance decreased with longer retention intervals and also as time passed in the test period. The rate of forgetting was virtually the same when either the retention interval was lengthened or time elapsed in the test. These findings support a modified trace theory, which proposes that the sample stimulus trace decays at a constant rate from the point of sample offset, and that the decaying memory trace is repeatedly compared with the prevailing test stimulus as time passes in the test period.The delayed matching-to-sample (DMTS) procedure has been used extensively to study animal short-term memory. In this conditional discrimination procedure, a sample stimulus is presented for a specified period of time, after which a delay or retention interval is imposed, followed by presentation of one or more test stimuli. In the choice DMTS procedure, two or more test stimuli are presented and the subject must select the stimulus that matches the prior sample in order to earn reinforcement (Blough, 1959). Another kind of DMTS procedure involves presentation of only one test stimulus at a time. If the test stimulus matches the prior sample, reinforcement is scheduled; however, if the test stimulus does not match the sample, no reinforcement is delivered. The subject's "choice" here is whether or not to respond (Konorski, 1959;Wasserman, 1976). This second method can be called go/no-go DMTS.In the typical choice DMTS procedure, the test stimuli offset as soon as a response is made, whereas in the go/no-go task, the test stimulus may remain on for longer periods of time. Having the test stimulus stay on beyond the first response permits an evaluation of subjects' response rates. Wasserman (1976), for example, found that pigeons responded differentially on matching and nonmatching trials, with overall response rates higher on matching trials. The mean latencies to the first test keyThis research is based on the first author's thesis, submitted to the University of Iowa in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the MA degree. The authors wish to thank Dan Neunaber, Gary Schroeder, and Diane Chatlosh for their help with this project. The comments of the Editor and two anonymous reviewers were also of considerable value to the preparation of this report. Requests for reprints should be sent to E. A. Wasserman.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 76%

Section: Time (In S) Since Sample Offsetmentioning

confidence: 96%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations