The effect of sample and comparison ratio schedules on delayed matching to sample in the pigeon

Wilkie, Donald M.

doi:10.3758/bf03209613

Cited by 25 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…When reinforcers for correct matching in DMTS are delayed, performance becomes less accurate (McCarthy & Davison, 1986Sargisson & White, 2003;Weavers, Foster, & Temple, 1998;Wilkie & Spetch, 1978). This is principally manifest as a reduction in initial discriminability, consistent with a time-independent effect of delayed reinforcement.…”

Section: Forgetting Functions and Reinforcementmentioning

confidence: 89%

Remembering: The role of extraneous reinforcement

Brown

White

2005

Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In two experiments, pigeons' responding on an extraneous task was explicitly reinforced during delayed matching-to-sample trials. In Experiment 1, red or green sample stimuli were followed by retention intervals of 0.2, 1, 4, or 12 sec, during which pecks to a white center key were reinforced with 2.5-sec access to wheat according to extinction, variable-interval 30-sec, and variable-interval 15-sec schedules in different conditions. A proportion of .2, .5, .7, or .9 of subsequent red or green choice responses that matched the sample were reinforced with 3-sec access to wheat. The result was that increasing center key reinforcement, or reducing reinforcer probability, lowered overall accuracy. Initial discriminability fell, but with no change in the rate of forgetting. In Experiment 2, initial discriminability was affected by extraneous reinforcers that were contingent on center key pecking, but not by noncontingent reinforcers. A plausible conclusion is that initial discriminability decreases when reinforcers strengthen competing behaviors.

show abstract

Section: Forgetting Functions and Reinforcementmentioning

confidence: 89%

Remembering: The role of extraneous reinforcement

Brown

White

2005

Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Further, we expected this decay function to be well described by a rectangularhyperbolic function, Equation 4 (Harnett et al, 1984;McCarthy & White, 1986). Given the findings of Wilkie and Spetch (1978), we also expected discriminability to decrease with increasing choice-reinforcer delays (tr). The major question posed was whether discriminability was a similarly decreasing function of delay under sample-choice and choice-reinforcer delay procedures (cf.…”

Section: Bxn8zimentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In quantitative terms, discriminability, so defined, appears better described as a decreasing rectangularhyperbolic function (Harnett et al) than as a negative-exponential function (White & McKenzie), of the sample-choice delay. Matching-to-sample accuracy also has been shown to decrease with increasing delays between choice and reinforcers (Cox & D'Amato, 1977;D'Amato & Cox, 1976;Wilkie & Spetch, 1978).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Delayed Reinforcement and Delayed Choice in Symbolic Matching to Sample: Effects on Stimulus Discriminability

McCarthy¹,

Davison²

1986

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Six pigeons were trained to peck a red side key when the brighter of two white lights (S,) had been presented on the center key, and to peck a green side key when the dimmer of two white lights (S2) had been presented on the center key. Equal frequencies of reinforcers were provided for the two types of correct choice. Incorrect choices, red side-key pecks following S2 presentations and green sidekey pecks following S, presentations, resulted in blackout. With 0-s delay between choice and reinforcement, the delay between sample presentation and choice was varied from 0 to 20 s. Then, with 0-s delay between sample presentation and choice, the delay between choice and reinforcement was varied from 0 to 20 s. Both types of delay resulted in decreased discriminability (defined in terms of a signal-detection analysis) of the center-key stimuli, but delayed choice had more effect on discriminability than did delayed reinforcement. These data are consistent with the view that the two kinds of delay operate differently. The effect of a sample-choice delay may result from a degradation of the conditional discriminative stimuli during the delay; the effect of a choice-reinforcer delay may result from a decrement in control by differential reinforcement.

show abstract

“…For example, Eckerman, Lanson, and Cumming (1968) reported greater accuracy when pecks to the sample key were required compared to the absence of such required pecks. Other investigators have reported that increases in the number of responses required on the sample key increases matching accuracy (e.g., Sacks, Kamil, & Mack, 1972; Wilkie & Spetch, 1978).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Sample‐specific Ratio Effects in Matching to Sample

Paul

1983

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In a symbolic matching-to-sample task, pigeons were trained using sample-specific, fixedratio "observing responses." Subsequently, in a mixed condition, each sample was presented equally often with each ratio requirement, i.e., the ratios were no longer correlated with the samples. In a second experiment, pigeons were trained initially in the mixed condition and subsequently shifted to the sample-specific condition in which the required ratios were correlated with the samples. Results of both experiments suggested joint control of choices by ratio value and by the exteroceptive stimuli. The discriminative properties of the ratios appeared to outweigh absolute ratio-size effects.

show abstract

The effect of sample and comparison ratio schedules on delayed matching to sample in the pigeon

Cited by 25 publications

References 13 publications

Remembering: The role of extraneous reinforcement

Remembering: The role of extraneous reinforcement

Delayed Reinforcement and Delayed Choice in Symbolic Matching to Sample: Effects on Stimulus Discriminability

Sample‐specific Ratio Effects in Matching to Sample

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About