Biomedical subjects

Peter J Urcuioli

Publications and source records attributed to Peter J Urcuioli.

9 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2006

When discrimination fails (or at least falters).

Pigeons learned 2 concurrent simultaneous discriminations in which the pecking of left keys versus right keys was reinforced depending on a color that appeared on one of the keys. When the reinforced choice was to peck directly at the color, accuracy was very high initially, but dropped noticeably with continued training. Partial reinforcement of these choices exacerbated the dropoff, sometimes causing accuracies to fall close to zero. By contrast, when the reinforced choice was to peck the alternate-key stimulus, accuracy was very low, initially, but remained high and stable following acquisition. Lowering the reinforcement probability, even to zero, for the latter choices had little effect on their accuracy but yielded increased accuracy on color-choice trials. These results resemble the ambiguous-cue effect and suggest the process of value transfer.

Animals↗

PubMed2006

Some tests of response membership in acquired equivalence classes.

Pigeons were trained on many-to-one matching in which pairs of samples, each consisting of a visual stimulus and a distinctive pattern of center-key responding, occasioned the same reinforced comparison choice. Acquired equivalence between the visual and response samples then was evaluated by reinforcing new comparison choices to one set of samples, and examining generalization of these choices to the other samples. Three separate experiments found no evidence of such generalization, as indexed by performance on class-consistent versus class-inconsistent tests. Other tests showed that the pigeons' center-key response patterns during training had indeed served as a conditional cue for choice. These results do not support the hypothesis that different defined responses can become members of acquired equivalence classes.

Animals↗

PubMed2005

The role of common reinforced comparison responses in acquired sample equivalence.

Different samples occasioning the same reinforced comparison response in matching-to-sample are interchangeable for one another outside of original training. The present studies were designed to verify the role of these common responses in producing acquired sample equivalence by explicitly varying the presence or absence of this commonality during training. In each of the two experiments, one group of pigeons made the same reinforced choice response following multiple sample stimuli, whereas controls either made different reinforced choices following each sample (Experiment 1) or reinforced choices after only two of four center-key stimuli (Experiment 2). Later, two of the original samples/center-key stimuli were established as conditional cues for new comparison responses, after which the ability of the remaining samples/center-key stimuli to occasion those new responses was assessed. Following common-response training, matching accuracy was higher on class-consistent than on class-inconsistent transfer tests, whereas accuracy in the controls was generally intermediate between these two extremes, a pattern similar to that reported in the human paired-associate literature. These findings confirm that occasioning the same reinforced choice response is one means by which disparate samples become functionally equivalent.

Animals↗

PubMed2005

A Simon effect in pigeons.

Pigeons pecked left versus right keys contingent upon the color presented at 1 of those locations. Spatial-response latencies were shorter when the color appeared at the same location as the required response than at the opposite location. This Simon effect occurred when the stimulus on the alternative key was constant, varied from trial to trial, or changed when the color cue appeared and when the reinforcement probability for correct responses was the same on corresponding as on noncorresponding trials. Humans performing the same task by touching the keys also showed the Simon effect. These findings demonstrate that for pigeons, too, a relevant symbolic cue activates a spatial code that produces faster responses at the location corresponding with the activated code.

Animals↗

PubMed2005

Control of matching by differential outcome expectancies in the absence of differential sample-outcome associations: a serial compound view.

In this study, pigeons learned 2 separate one-to-many conditional discriminations in which they matched form samples to line and hue comparisons. Correct choices within each comparison dimension yielded differential (food vs. no-food) outcomes that were not predictable from the samples alone. At asymptote, latency to make a correct choice was shorter when food was the contingent outcome than when no food was the outcome. More important, when the samples from each task were subsequently exchanged, comparison choice varied systematically as a function of the sample and the set of new comparison alternatives that followed them. Together, these results indicate that choices were cued by differential outcome expectancies arising from serial compounds consisting of each sample and the dimensional characteristics of the comparisons.

Analysis of Variance↗

PubMed2005

Behavioral and associative effects of differential outcomes in discrimination learning.

The role of the reinforcer in instrumental discriminations has often been viewed as that of facilitating associative learning between a reinforced response and the discriminative stimulus that occasions it. The differential-outcome paradigm introduced by Trapold (1970), however, has provided compelling evidence that reinforcers are also part of what is learned in discrimination tasks. Specifically, when the availability of different reinforcing outcomes is signaled by different discriminative stimuli, the conditioned anticipation of those outcomes can provide another source of stimulus control over responding. This article reviews how such control develops and how it can be revealed, its impact on behavior, and different possible mechanisms that could mediate the behavioral effects. The main conclusion is that differential-outcome effects are almost entirely explicable in terms of the cue properties of outcome expectancies-namely, that conditioned expectancies acquire discriminative control just like any other discriminative or conditional stimulus in instrumental learning.

Animals↗

PubMed2003

A procedure for generating differential "sample" responding without different exteroceptive stimuli.

Sidman (1994, 2000) suggested that responses as well as stimuli can join equivalence classes, a hypothesis difficult to test because differential responding typically requires different stimuli. The present experiments describe a procedure with pigeons that avoids this potential confounding effect. In Experiment 1, spacing two responses 3 s apart (a differential-reinforcement-of-low-rate [DRL] schedule) to a white stimulus on some trials produced food or the comparison stimuli in a matching task, whereas pecking 10 or more times with no temporal restrictions (a fixed-ratio [FR] schedule) produced the same effect on other trials. Completing the alternative (unscheduled) requirement terminated the white stimulus and repeated the trial. Following such errors, pigeons learned to switch to the alternative response pattern on the repeat trials. In addition, the correct response pattern functioned as a conditional cue for comparison choice. In Experiment 2, mixed DRL-FR training was preceded by two-sample/two-alternative matching-to-sample with DRL and FR sample-response requirements. In a subsequent transfer test in which the correct response pattern to white served as the sample, pigeons preferentially chose the comparison previously reinforced following that pattern in the baseline task. This "unsignaled response" procedure may be useful for assessing whether differential responses can be members of acquired equivalence classes.

Animals↗

PubMed2002

The development of emergent differential sample behavior in pigeons.

Three experiments attempted to replicate Manabe, Kawashima, and Staddon's (1995) finding of emergent differential sample behavior in budgerigars that has been interpreted as evidence of functional equivalence class formation. In Experiments 1 and 2, pigeons initially learned two-sample/ two-alternative matching to sample in which comparison presentation was contingent on pecking one sample on a differential-reinforcement-of-low-rate (DRL) schedule and the other on a fixed-ratio (FR) schedule. Later, two new samples were added to the task. Comparison presentation on these trials occurred after the first sample peck following a predetermined interval (Experiment 1) or after completion of either the DRL or FR requirement, whichever occurred first (Experiment 2). Experiment 1 found no evidence for emergent spaced versus rapid responding to the new samples as they established conditional control over the familiar choices. By contrast, differential responding did emerge for some pigeons in Experiment 2, with responding to each new sample coinciding with the pattern explicitly conditioned to the original sample occasioning the same comparison choice. This emergent effect, however, disappeared for most pigeons with continued training. Experiment 3 systematically replicated Experiment 2 using differential peck location as the sample behavior. Differential location pecking emerged to the new samples for most pigeons and remained intact throughout training. Our findings demonstrate a viable pigeon analogue to the budgerigar emergent calling paradigm and are discussed in terms of equivalence- and non-equivalence-based processes.

Animals↗

PubMed2002

Stimulus control topographies and tests of symmetry in pigeons.

Pigeons were tested for symmetry after A-B training under conditions designed to avoid problems that may prevent its emergence, namely the change of stimulus location in testing relative to training and the lack of requisite discrimination training. In Experiment 1, samples appeared in two locations during baseline training to minimize the impact of stimulus location. Experiments 2 and 3 included multiple-location training along with additional identity and symbolic matching training, respectively, to explicitly train all of the simultaneous and successive stimulus discriminations required for testing. Experiment 4 provided reinforcement for symmetrical matching relations with some stimulus sets (with multiple-location training) prior to symmetry testing with different sets. In all experiments, pigeons showed no evidence of symmetry despite the fact that baseline (A-B) matching transferred to novel locations. Additional tests for reflexivity (Experiment 2) yielded similar outcomes. These results indicate that the change in stimulus location is not the sole reason that pigeons do not show symmetry and increase the plausibility of arguments that symmetry and other indexes of stimulus equivalence may be beyond the capabilities of the pigeon.

Animals↗