» Articles » PMID: 1940763

The Interaction Between Stimulus and Reinforcer Control on Remembering

Overview
Date 1991 Jul 1
PMID 1940763
Citations 22
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

In a symbolic matching-to-sample task, 6 pigeons obtained food by pecking a red side key when the brighter of two white lights had been presented on the center key and by pecking a green side key when the dimmer of two white lights had been presented on the center key. Across Part 1 and Parts 6 to 10, the delay between sample-stimulus presentation and the availability of the choice keys was varied between 0 s and 25 s. Across Parts 1 to 5, the delay between the emission of a correct choice and the delivery of a reinforcer was varied between 0 s and 30 s. Although increasing both types of delay decreased stimulus discriminability, lengthening the stimulus-choice delay produced a greater decrement in choice accuracy than did lengthening the choice-reinforcer delay. Additionally, the relative reinforcer rate for correct choice was varied across both types of delay. The sensitivity of behavior to the distribution of reinforcers decreased as discriminability decreased under both procedures. These data are consistent with the view, based on the generalized matching law, that sample stimuli and reinforcers interact in their control over remembering.

Citing Articles

Adolescent methylmercury exposure alters short-term remembering, but not sustained attention, in male Long-Evans rats.

Kendricks D, Boomhower S, Arnold M, Glenn D, Newland M Neurotoxicology. 2020; 78:186-194.

PMID: 32199988 PMC: 7238457. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuro.2020.03.009.


A Preliminary Analysis of Procedures to Teach Children with Autism to Report Past Behavior.

Shillingsburg M, Cariveau T, Talmadge B, Frampton S Anal Verbal Behav. 2019; 33(2):275-282.

PMID: 30854302 PMC: 6381333. DOI: 10.1007/s40616-017-0085-7.


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.


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.
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

3.
White K . Characteristics of forgetting functions in delayed matching to sample. J Exp Anal Behav. 1985; 44(1):15-34. PMC: 1348158. DOI: 10.1901/jeab.1985.44-15. View

4.
Shimp C, Moffitt M . Short-term memory in the pigeon: delayed-pair-comparison procedures and some results. J Exp Anal Behav. 1977; 28(1):13-25. PMC: 1333610. DOI: 10.1901/jeab.1977.28-13. View

5.
McCarthy D, Davison M . Towards a behavioral theory of bias in signal detection. Percept Psychophys. 1981; 29(4):371-82. DOI: 10.3758/bf03207347. View