Biomedical subjects

Karen M Lionello-DeNolf

Publications and source records attributed to Karen M Lionello-DeNolf.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

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↗

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↗