Literature DB >> 12908761

Quantitative analyses of matching-to-sample performance.

B M Jones1.   

Abstract

Six pigeons performed a simultaneous matching-to-sample (MTS) task involving patterns of dots on a liquid-crystal display. Two samples and two comparisons differed in terms of the density of pixels visible through pecking keys mounted in front of the display. Selections of Comparison 1 after Sample 1, and of Comparison 2 after Sample 2, produced intermittent access to food, and errors always produced a time-out. The disparity between the samples and between the comparisons varied across sets of conditions. The ratio of food deliveries for the two correct responses varied over a wide range within each set of conditions, and one condition arranged extinction for correct responses following Sample 1. The quantitative models proposed by Davison and Tustin (1978), Alsop (1991), and Davison (1991) failed to predict performance in some extreme reinforcer-ratio conditions because comparison choice approached indifference (and strong position biases emerged) when the sample clearly signaled a low (or zero) rate of reinforcement. An alternative conceptualization of the reinforcement contingencies operating in MTS tasks is advanced and was supported by further analyses of the data. This model relates the differential responding between the comparisons following each sample to the differential reinforcement for correct responses following that sample.

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12908761      PMCID: PMC1284938          DOI: 10.1901/jeab.2003.79-323

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav        ISSN: 0022-5002            Impact factor:   2.468


  26 in total

1.  Concurrent responding with fixed relative rate of reinforcement.

Authors:  D A Stubbs; S S Pliskoff
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1969-11       Impact factor: 2.468

2.  The relation between the generalized matching law and signal-detection theory.

Authors:  M C Davison; R D Tustin
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1978-03       Impact factor: 2.468

3.  Stimuli, reinforcers, and behavior: an integration.

Authors:  M Davison; J Nevin
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1999-05       Impact factor: 2.468

4.  Effects of relative reinforcer frequency on complex color detection.

Authors:  M Davison; D McCarthy
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1989-05       Impact factor: 2.468

5.  Effects of differences between stimuli, responses, and reinforcer rates on conditional discrimination performance.

Authors:  J A Nevin; H Cate; B Alsop
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1993-01       Impact factor: 2.468

6.  Reporting contingencies of reinforcement in concurrent schedules.

Authors:  B Jones; M Davison
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1998-03       Impact factor: 2.468

7.  The interaction between stimulus and reinforcer control on remembering.

Authors:  D C McCarthy; M Davison
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1991-07       Impact factor: 2.468

8.  Reinforcement contingencies and signal detection.

Authors:  J A Nevin; P Jenkins; S Whittaker; P Yarensky
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1982-01       Impact factor: 2.468

9.  Matching, undermatching, and overmatching in studies of choice.

Authors:  W M Baum
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1979-09       Impact factor: 2.468

10.  Delayed stimulus control: recall for single and relational stimuli.

Authors:  K G White; J McKenzie
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1982-11       Impact factor: 2.468

View more
  8 in total

1.  A theory of attending and reinforcement in conditional discriminations.

Authors:  John A Nevin; Michael Davison; Timothy A Shahan
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  2005-09       Impact factor: 2.468

2.  A theory of attending, remembering, and reinforcement in delayed matching to sample.

Authors:  John A Nevin; Michael Davison; Amy L Odum; Timothy A Shahan
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  2007-09       Impact factor: 2.468

3.  Effects of prefeeding, extinction, and distraction during sample and comparison presentation on sensitivity to reinforcer frequency in matching to sample.

Authors:  Ryan D Ward; Robert N Johnson; Amy L Odum
Journal:  Behav Processes       Date:  2009-02-13       Impact factor: 1.777

4.  Sensitivity of conditional-discrimination performance to within-session variation of reinforcer frequency.

Authors:  Ryan D Ward; Amy L Odum
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  2008-11       Impact factor: 2.468

5.  Reinforcer control by comparison-stimulus color and location in a delayed matching-to-sample task.

Authors:  Brent Alsop; B Max Jones
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  2008-05       Impact factor: 2.468

6.  Divided stimulus control: a replication and a quantitative model.

Authors:  Michael Davison; Douglas Elliffe
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  2010-07       Impact factor: 2.468

7.  Evidence for response membership in stimulus classes by pigeons.

Authors:  Peter J Urcuioli; B Max Jones; Karen M Lionello-DeNolf
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  2013-02-14       Impact factor: 2.468

8.  Matching-to-sample performance is better analyzed in terms of a four-term contingency than in terms of a three-term contingency.

Authors:  Brent M Jones; Douglas M Elliffe
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  2013-05-31       Impact factor: 2.468

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.