» Articles » PMID: 12908761

Quantitative Analyses of Matching-to-sample Performance

Overview
Date 2003 Aug 12
PMID 12908761
Citations 8
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
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.

Citing Articles

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

Jones B, Elliffe D J Exp Anal Behav. 2013; 100(1):5-26.

PMID: 23728927 PMC: 3895616. DOI: 10.1002/jeab.32.


Evidence for response membership in stimulus classes by pigeons.

Urcuioli P, Jones B, Lionello-DeNolf K J Exp Anal Behav. 2013; 99(2):129-49.

PMID: 23413094 PMC: 3906207. DOI: 10.1002/jeab.17.


Divided stimulus control: a replication and a quantitative model.

Davison M, Elliffe D J Exp Anal Behav. 2011; 94(1):13-23.

PMID: 21279159 PMC: 2893614. DOI: 10.1901/jeab.2010.94-13.


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

Ward R, Johnson R, Odum A Behav Processes. 2009; 81(1):65-73.

PMID: 19429198 PMC: 2689710. DOI: 10.1016/j.beproc.2009.02.003.


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

Ward R, Odum A J Exp Anal Behav. 2008; 90(3):301-11.

PMID: 19070338 PMC: 2582205. DOI: 10.1901/jeab.2008.90-301.


References
1.
Baum W . Matching, undermatching, and overmatching in studies of choice. J Exp Anal Behav. 1979; 32(2):269-81. PMC: 1332902. DOI: 10.1901/jeab.1979.32-269. View

2.
Nevin J, Jenkins P, Whittaker S, Yarensky P . Reinforcement contingencies and signal detection. J Exp Anal Behav. 1982; 37(1):65-79. PMC: 1333119. DOI: 10.1901/jeab.1982.37-65. View

3.
Davison M, Nevin J . Stimuli, reinforcers, and behavior: an integration. J Exp Anal Behav. 2006; 71(3):439-82. PMC: 1284721. DOI: 10.1901/jeab.1999.71-439. View

4.
White K, McKenzie J . Delayed stimulus control: recall for single and relational stimuli. J Exp Anal Behav. 1982; 38(3):305-12. PMC: 1347869. DOI: 10.1901/jeab.1982.38-305. View

5.
McCarthy D, Davison M . The interaction between stimulus and reinforcer control on remembering. J Exp Anal Behav. 1991; 56(1):51-66. PMC: 1323082. DOI: 10.1901/jeab.1991.56-51. View