Literature DB >> 22205622

Delayed matching to sample: reinforcement has opposite effects on resistance to change in two related procedures.

John A Nevin1, Timothy A Shahan, Amy L Odum, Ryan Ward.   

Abstract

The effects of reinforcement on delayed matching to sample (DMTS) have been studied in two within-subjects procedures. In one, reinforcer magnitudes or probabilities vary from trial to trial and are signaled within trials (designated signaled DMTS trials). In the other, reinforcer probabilities are consistent for a series of trials produced by responding on variable-interval (VI) schedules within multiple-schedule components (designated multiple VI DMTS). In both procedures, forgetting functions in rich trials or components are higher than and roughly parallel to those in lean trials or components. However, during disruption, accuracy has been found to decrease more in rich than in lean signaled DMTS trials and, conversely, to decrease more in lean than in rich multiple VI DMTS components. In the present study, we compared these procedures in two groups of pigeons. In baseline, forgetting functions in rich trials or components were higher than and roughly parallel to those in lean trials or components, and were similar between the procedures. During disruption by prefeeding or extinction, accuracy decreased more in rich signaled DMTS trials, whereas accuracy decreased more in lean multiple VI DMTS components. These results replicate earlier studies and are predicted by a model of DMTS from Nevin, Davison, Odum, and Shahan (2007).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22205622      PMCID: PMC3356492          DOI: 10.3758/s13420-011-0059-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Learn Behav        ISSN: 1543-4494            Impact factor:   1.986


  14 in total

1.  Pigeons may not remember the stimuli that reinforced their recent behavior.

Authors:  D W Schaal; A L Odum; T A Shahan
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  2000-03       Impact factor: 2.468

2.  On the effects of signaling reinforcer probability and magnitude in delayed matching to sample.

Authors:  Glenn S Brown; K Geoffrey White
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 2.468

3.  Resistance to change of forgetting functions and response rates.

Authors:  Amy L Odum; Timothy A Shahan; John A Nevin
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  2005-07       Impact factor: 2.468

4.  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

5.  Delayed matching-to-sample performance: Effects of relative reinforcer frequency and of signaled versus unsignaled reinforcer magnitudes.

Authors:  D McCarthy; P Voss
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1995-01       Impact factor: 2.468

6.  The optimal correction for estimating extreme discriminability.

Authors:  Glenn S Brown; K Geoffrey White
Journal:  Behav Res Methods       Date:  2005-08

7.  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

8.  Reinforcer probability, reinforcer magnitude, and the reinforcement context for remembering.

Authors:  Glenn S Brown; K Geoffrey White
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process       Date:  2009-04

9.  The effects of hippocampal and area parahippocampalis lesions in pigeons: I. Delayed matching to sample.

Authors:  M Colombo; N Swain; D Harper; B Alsop
Journal:  Q J Exp Psychol B       Date:  1997-05

10.  Effects of phenobarbital, clonazepam, valproic acid, ethosuximide, and phenytoin on the delayed matching-to-sample performance of pigeons.

Authors:  M Picker; W White; A Poling
Journal:  Psychopharmacology (Berl)       Date:  1985       Impact factor: 4.530

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.