Assessing the contributions of S-O and R-O associations to differential-outcome matching through outcome reversals.

Pigeons were trained on symbolic matching with 2 samples, 2 pairs of comparisons, and different outcomes for the correct responses within each comparison pair. For one group, the 2 samples were also associated with different outcomes, whereas for another group, they were not. When the response-outcome (R-O) relations for one pair were subsequently reversed, the group trained with differential sample-outcome (S-O) associations was significantly disrupted in its performance on both reversed- and nonreversed-outcome trials. By contrast, the group trained with just differential R-O associations was disrupted only on reversed-outcome trials. These results were replicated when the outcomes on the initially nonreversed trials were then reversed. The findings indicate that differential S-O associations, when present, have a stronger influence on matching performances than differential R-O associations. They are also consistent with hierarchical and configural models of discriminative control.

Transfer of pigeons' matching to sample to novel sample locations.

This study examined the conditions under which conditional stimulus control by the sample stimuli in three-key matching-to-sample paradigms would generalize across the different possible sample locations. In Experiments 1 and 2, the samples appeared on the left and right side keys during initial training and then on the center key during testing. Transfer of pigeons' matching performances to the center-key samples was evident after both identity and symbolic matching training. In Experiment 3, pigeons trained on symbolic matching with two side-key samples or with a side-key and a center-key sample generally transferred their learned matching performances to those samples when they subsequently appeared in the remaining (novel) location. These results indicate that, when two-choice conditional discriminations are learned with more than one sample location, the visual characteristics of the sample per se predominantly come to control the pigeons' comparison choices. This finding encourages the use of the multiple-location training procedure as a way of reducing control by location, thus providing a more discriminating test of symmetry in animals.

Sample-duration effects on pigeons' delayed matching as a function of predictability of duration.

Three experiments assessed the impact of sample duration on pigeons' delayed matching as a function of whether or not the samples themselves signaled how long they would remain on. When duration was uncorrelated with the sample appearing on each matching trial, the typical effect of duration was observed: Choice accuracy was higher with long (15-s) than with short (5-s) durations. By contrast, this difference either disappeared or reversed when the 5- and 15-s durations were correlated with the sample stimuli. Sample duration itself cued comparison choice by some birds in the latter (predictable) condition when duration was also correlated with the reinforced choice alternatives. However, even when duration could not provide a cue for choice, pigeons matched predictably short-duration samples as accurately as, or more accurately than, predictably long-duration samples. Moreover, this result was observed independently of whether the contextual conditions of the retention interval were the same as, or different from, those of the intertrial interval. These results strongly support the view that conditional stimulus control by the samples is partly a function of their conditioned reinforcing properties, as determined by the relative reduction in overall delay to reinforcement that they signal.

Control by sample location in pigeons' matching to sample.

Three experiments assessed the impact of sample location in pigeons' matching to sample. Experiments 1 and 2 demonstrated that after line or hue identity matching was acquired to high levels of accuracy with center-key samples, varying sample location across the three keys disrupted performances. The drop in accuracy occurred following both zero-delay and simultaneous training and was mostly confined to trials in which the sample appeared on a side key. Experiment 3 attempted to diminish control by location by training birds to match samples that could appear in any location prior to center-key sample training and moving-sample testing with another set of stimuli. In testing, all birds performed accurately on center-sample trials and on side-key sample trials in which the matching choice appeared on the center key. Accuracy was below chance, however, on side-key sample trials in which the matching choice appeared on the other side key. One implication of the persistent control by sample location in the three-key paradigm is that it precludes the possibility of symmetry because symmetry tests require a change in the locations at which samples and comparisons appear.

Transfer across delayed discriminations: II. Differences in the substitutability of initial versus test stimuli.

In 2 experiments, pigeons were trained on, and then transferred to, delayed simple discriminations in which the initial stimuli signalled reinforcement versus extinction following a retention interval. Experiment 1 showed that discriminative responding on the retention test transferred to novel test stimuli that had appeared in another delayed simple discrimination but not to stimuli having the same reinforcement history off-baseline. By contrast, Experiment 2 showed that performances transferred to novel initial stimuli whether they had been trained on-baseline or off-baseline. These results suggest that the test stimuli in delayed simple discriminations acquire control over responding only in the memory task itself. On the other hand, control by the initial stimuli, if coded as outcome expectancies, does not require such task-specific training.

Memory processes in delayed spatial discriminations: response intentions or response mediation?

Pigeons were trained on a pair-comparison task in which left versus right choices were reinforced following different sequences of two center-key stimuli. Choice accuracy was higher when retention intervals occurred after the entire sequence than when they separated the two stimuli comprising it, and this effect occurred independently of whether the initial and terminal stimuli came from the same or different dimensions. The initial stimulus from the prior trial was a source of proactive interference only in groups for which the retention interval separated the two sequence stimuli. By contrast, differential delay-interval behavior was observed only in groups for which the retention interval followed presentation of the entire sequence. These results indicate that coding processes in delayed discriminations are influenced by the location of the retention interval, and that response mediation affects retention performances if the reinforced choice can be determined prior to the interval.

On the relationship between differential outcomes and differential sample responding in matching-to-sample.

Four experiments examined control over choice by differential sample responding in matching-to-sample with differential outcomes. In Experiment 1, pigeons initially learned to match with food versus no-food outcomes. Their performances later transferred to other samples to which responding versus not responding had been explicitly reinforced with a single outcome (food). In Experiment 2, pigeons initially learned to produce the comparisons by pecking one sample but not the other. Transfer was then observed to new samples associated with food versus no food (and thus often vs. seldomly pecked). Experiments 3 and 4 showed that transfer of matching required differential behavior to each sample set and did not depend on explicit conditioning of that behavior prior to acquisition. Together, these results show that differential sample behaviour provides a redundant cue for choice in differential outcome matching-to-sample.

Transfer across delayed discriminations: evidence regarding the nature of prospective working memory.

Pigeons were trained successively either on 2 delayed simple discriminations or on a delayed simple discrimination followed by delayed matching-to-sample. During subsequent transfer tests, the initial stimuli from the 1st task were substituted for those in the 2nd. Performances transferred immediately if both sets of initial stimuli had been associated with the presence versus absence of food on their respective retention tests, and the direction of transfer (positive or negative) depended on whether the substitution involved stimuli with identical or different outcome associates. No transfer was found, however, when the initial stimuli were associated with different patterns of responding but food occurred at the end of every trial. These results are consistent with outcome expectancy mediation but are incompatible with response intention and retrospective coding accounts.

Retrospective coding in pigeons' delayed matching-to-sample.

In this study we examined how coding processes in pigeons' delayed matching-to-sample were affected by the stimuli to be remembered. In Experiment 1, two groups of pigeons initially learned 0-delay matching-to-sample with identical comparison stimuli (vertical and horizontal lines) but with different sample stimuli (red and green hues or vertical and horizontal lines). Longer delays were then introduced between sample offset and comparison onset to assess whether pigeons were prospectively coding the same events (viz., the correct line comparisons) or retrospectively coding different events (viz., their respective sample stimuli). The hue-sample group matched more accurately and showed a slower rate of forgetting than the line-sample group. In Experiment 2, pigeons were trained with either hues or lines as both sample and comparison stimuli, or with hue samples and line comparisons or vice versa. Subsequent delay tests revealed that the hue-sample groups remembered more accurately and generally showed slower rates of forgetting than the line-sample groups. Comparison dimension had little or no effect on performance. Together, these data suggest that pigeons retrospectively code the samples in delayed matching-to-sample.

On the role of differential sample behaviors in matching-to-sample.

Pigeons were trained on matching-to-sample (MTS) with differential sample-response requirements that were identical with respect to two pairs of sample stimuli but were either correlated or uncorrelated with correct choice. Experiment 1A showed that birds in the uncorrelated condition were slower to reach criterion levels of accuracy than birds in the correlated condition in spite of their equivalent sample discriminations. However, correlated birds were more disrupted in their matching performances than the uncorrelated birds when subsequently switched to nondifferential sample-response requirements (Experiment 1B). Experiment 2 showed that differential sample behaviors also generated higher levels of accuracy on delayed MTS when correlated with choice, and that accuracy in this condition did not differ as a function of whether the samples were hues or lines. Sample dimension did affect memory performance, on the other hand, in the uncorrelated condition. In Experiment 3, reversing differential sample-response requirements for one pair of samples substantially reduced matching accuracy in the correlated group but had almost no effect in the uncorrelated group. These findings demonstrate that differential sample behaviors directly control pigeons' matching performances and also overshadow conditional stimulus control by the samples when these behaviors are predictive of correct choice. The facilitation in matching produced by differential sample behaviors apparently arises from the additional cue these behaviors provide, not because they enhance sample discriminability.

The legacy of Guttman and Kalish (1956): Twenty-five years of research on stimulus generalization.

This paper is a selective review of the methods, problems, and findings in the area of operant stimulus generalization over the 25 years since the publication of the original paper by Guttman and Kalish (1956) on discriminability and spectral generalization in the pigeon. The paper falls into five main sections, which encompass the main themes and problems stemming from the Guttman and Kalish work and its immediate successors. The first section addresses the relationship between stimulus generalization and stimulus control, as well as the variety of testing procedures and dependent variables used to measure generalization. The next section reviews the limited literature on the effects of early rearing on the generalization gradient. The relationship between discriminability among test stimuli and the slope of the spectral gradient is discussed in the third section, with emphasis upon recent reassessments of the pigeon's hue discriminability function. The fourth section reviews the topic of inhibitory stimulus control, one which developed with the discovery of the peak shift following intradimensional discrimination training. Problems of definition and measurement are discussed in conjunction with the gradient forms used to index inhibitory control. The last section is devoted to attentional effects and the two principal theories postulated to account for them. A survey of different attentional paradigms is provided and the possible role of constant irrelevant stimuli as a source of control is examined. A brief conclusion summarizes the contribution of the generalization technique toward an understanding of the nature and acquisition of stimulus control.

Control of choice in conditional discriminations by sample-specific behaviors.

When sample-specific responding is occasioned by sample stimuli in matching and oddity tasks with pigeons, such responding controls the choices between comparison stimuli. This control was investigated in four experiments. In Experiments 1 and 2, differential responding to the samples in line-line matching and line-line oddity was reversed following acquisition of these problems. The reversal interfered with reacquisition of the same conditional discrimination but facilitated acquisition of the opposite discrimination. In Experiment 3, pigeons initially trained on line-line matching were shifted to hue-line matching. Positive transfer occurred when correct choices in both tasks were paired with the same sample-response patterns. Conversely, negative transfer occurred when correct choices were paired with opposite patterns. In Experiment 4, two concurrent conditional discriminations were designed so that sample-response patterns were paired with specific sample stimuli, but not with correct choices. Faster acquisition occurred when response patterns differed within rather than between sample dimensions. Furthermore, sample-specific responding controlled choices when the dimensional stimuli were difficult to discriminate but not when they were easy to discriminate. The combined results are interpreted in terms of overshadowing. Visual stimuli that control choice can be overshadowed by sample-specific responding if the latter facilitates conditional discrimination acquisition.

Transfer of oddity-from-sample performance in pigeons.

Four pigeons were trained on a modified three-key oddity-from-sample task in which an observing response to the sample (center-key) stimulus lighted a single comparison (side-key) stimulus. If the comparison stimulus was different from the sample stimulus, a single peck to the lighted comparison was reinforced. If the comparison and sample stimuli were identical, the pigeons had to refrain from pecking the comparison for 4.6 seconds to terminate the matching comparison and to produce immediately a nonmatching comparison on the remaining side key. Each peck to the matching comparison reset the 4.6-second delay interval. Three hues were used during acquisition. During tests for transfer of the oddity performance, two novel hues were substituted either individually or together for one or two of the original training hues. For three birds, latencies to novel nonmatching hues were identical to baseline nonmatching latencies. Latencies to novel matching hues were shorter than baseline matching latencies but were consistently longer than novel nonmatching latencies. These transfer data demonstrate that the pigeons learned the oddity concept.

Transfer of hue matching in pigeons.

Pigeons were trained on a modified three-key matching-to-sample procedure, in which only one comparison key (rather than two) was lighted after an observing response to the center-key standard. Pecks on keys of matching comparison hues were reinforced. When non-matching hues appeared as the initially lighted comparisons, the nonmatching hue terminated and the matching hue appeared on the other side key only if the pigeon did not peck the nonmatching comparison for 4.8 sec. Pecks to the nonmatching hue reset the 4.8-sec delay interval. Three hues were used during acquisition. During transfer tests, two novel hues were substituted individually or together for one or two of the training hues. Latencies to the novel side-key hue were shortest when a novel matching hue appeared as the standard on the center key, and were essentially identical to baseline matching latencies. In contrast, when a novel hue appeared as either a standard or comparison in a nonmatching combination, latencies increased with increasing separation between the noevel hue and the nonmatching hue. These transfer data demonstrate the concept of hue matching.