Sample stimulus control shaping and restricted stimulus control in capuchin monkeys: a methodological note.

This paper reports use of sample stimulus control shaping procedures to teach arbitrary matching-to-sample to 2 capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella). The procedures started with identity matching-to-sample. During shaping, stimulus features of the sample were altered gradually, rendering samples and comparisons increasingly physically dissimilar. The objective was to transform identity matching into arbitrary matching (i.e., matching not based on common physical features of the sample and comparison stimuli). Experiment 1 used a two-comparison procedure. The shaping procedure was ultimately effective, but occasional high error rates at certain program steps inspired a follow-up study. Experiment 2 used the same basic approach, but with a three-comparison matching task. During shaping, the monkey performed accurately until the final steps of the program. Subsequent experimentation tested the hypothesis that the decrease in accuracy was due to restricted stimulus control by sample stimulus features that had not yet been changed in the shaping program. Results were consistent with this hypothesis, thus suggesting a new approach that may transform the sample stimulus control shaping procedure from a sometimes useful laboratory tool to a more general approach to teaching the first instance of arbitrary matching performances to participants who show protracted difficulties in learning such performances.

Equivalence classes with requirements for short response latencies.

Five adult humans were tested for emergent conditional discriminations under rapid-responding contingencies. During four-comparison matching-to-sample baseline training (AB and AC), limited-hold contingencies for responding to samples and comparisons were gradually restricted to the shortest duration consistent with at least 95% accuracy and no more than 5% failures to respond. The final limited-hold values were 0.4-0.5 s for samples and 1.2-1.3 s for comparisons; mean response latencies were 0.15-0.28 s for samples and 0.59-0.73 s for comparisons; inter-trial intervals were 0.4 s. With these fast-responding requirements, test blocks presented 72 probe trials interspersed among 72 baseline trials, all without programmed differential consequences. Four equivalence test blocks (BC and CB probes, which tested simultaneously for both symmetry and transitivity) were followed by four symmetry (BA and CA probes) test blocks. Three subjects' results documented emergent performances indicative of equivalence classes despite fast-responding requirements that severely limited the time available for mediating vocal or subvocal responses. For these three subjects, mean latencies were slightly shorter in baseline trials than in probes, and shorter on symmetry than on equivalence probes. These differences, however, were usually less than the differences among mean latencies on the different types of trials within the baseline and probed performances.