Interaction between the variety of negative stimuli and the type of go/no-go procedure.

Eduardo Polín, Vicente Pérez

Abstract


Two experiments were carried out in order to compare the speed of acquisition of visual simple discriminations by pigeons depending on whether the negative stimuli could vary trial by trial (varied condition) or it was always the same stimulus (constant condition). In the first experiment, the subjects were randomly assigned to the conditions and then exposed to a go/no-go procedure in which “no-go” trials were also reinforced. Subsequently, the subjects changed from one condition to the other and were exposed to a new discrimination. In the second experiment, two discriminations were arranged in the same way as in the previous experiment, but, this time, “no-go” trials were not reinforced. In Experiment 1, the acquisition was slower in the varied condition. In Experiment 2, this effect was only observed when the subjects were exposed to the varied condition in the second discrimination. These results suggest, on one hand, that the variety of negative stimuli is an important variable to be considered. And, on the other hand, that the resulting effect on acquisition might be strongly sensitive to the kind of procedure that is used.

Keywords


Variety of negative stimuli; go/no-go procedure; acquisition; key peck; pigeons.

Full Text:

PDF

References


Bowman L. G., Piazza C. C., Fisher W. W., Hagopian L. P., & Kogan J. S. (1997). Assessment of preference for varied versus single reinforcers. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30, 451–458. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1997.30-451

De Rose, J. C., McIlvane, W. J., Dube, W. V., Galpin, V. C., & Stoddard, L. T. (1988). Emergent simple discrimination established by indirect relation to differential consequences. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 50, 1-20. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1988.50-1

Dube, W. V., McIlvane, W. J., Maguire, R. W., Mackay, H. A., y Stoddard, L. T. (1989). Stimulus class formation and stimulus—reinforcer relations. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 51, 65-76. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1989.51-65

Egel, A. L. (1980). The effects of constant vs. varied reinforcer presentation on responding by autistic children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 30, 455-463. doi: 10.1016/0022-0965(80)90050-8

Egel, A. L. (1981). Reinforcer variation: Implications for motivating developmentally disabled children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 14, 345-350. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1981.14-345

Farthing, G. W. (1974). Behavioral contrast with multiple positive and negative stimuli on a continuum. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 22, 419-425. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1974.22-419

Mandler, J. M. (1970). Two-choice discrimination learning using multiple stimuli. Learning and Motivation, 1, 261-266. doi: 10.1016/0023-9690(70)90150-5

Mandler, J. M. (1973). Multiple stimulus discrimination learning. III. What is learned? The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 25, 112-123. doi: 10.1080/14640747308400329

Milo, J. S., Mace, F. C., & Nevin, J. A. (2010). The effects of constant versus varied reinforcers on preference and resistance to change. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 93, 385-394. doi: 10.1901/jeab.2010.93-385

Mullins, G. P., & Winefield, A. H. (1979). The relative importance of responses to S+ and S- in simultaneous discrimination learning. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 31, 329-338. doi: 10.1080/14640747908400731

Pérez, V., & Polín, E. (2016). Simple discrimination training and conditional discrimination response. Anales de Psicología, 32, 250-255. doi: 10.6018/analesps.32.1.189471

Polín, E., & Pérez, V. (2017). The effect of varied reinforcement on acquisition and extinction speed. Psicothema, 29, 83-90. doi: 10.7334/psicothema2016.153

Saunders, R. R., & Green, G. (1999). A discrimination analysis of training-structure effects on stimulus equivalence outcomes. Journal of Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 72, 117-137. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1999.72-117

Schaeffer, B. H., & Shandro, N. (1969). Discrimination acquisition and reversal in the rat as a function of number of negative stimuli. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 69, 201. doi: 10.1037/h0027952

Skinner, B. F. (1938). The behavior of organisms. New York: Appleton.

Skinner, B. F. (1948). ‘Superstition’ in the pigeon. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 38, 168. doi: 10.1037/h0055873.

Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior. New York: Macmillan.

Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Skinner, B. F. (1969). Contingencies of reinforcement. New York: Appleton.

Steinman W. M. (1968a) Response rate and varied reinforcement: Reinforcers of similar strengths. Psychonomic Science, 10, 35. doi: 10.3758/BF03331393

Steinman W. M. (1968b) Response rate and varied reinforcement: Reinforcers of different strengths. Psychonomic Science, 10, 36. doi: 10.3758/BF03331394

Thrailkill, E. A., Epstein, L. H., & Bouton, M. E. (2015). Effects of inter-food interval on the variety effect in an instrumental food-seeking task. Clarifying the role of habituation. Appetite, 84, 43-53. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2014.09.015

Vaughan, W. Jr. (1988). Formation of equivalence sets in pigeons. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 14, 36-42. doi: 10.1037/0097-7403.14.1.36

Walk, R. D., & Saltz, E. J. (1965). Discrimination learning with varying numbers of positive and negative stimuli by children of different ages. Psychonomic Science, 2, 95-96. doi: 10.3758/BF03343347

Williams, D. I. (1967). Discrimination learning in the pigeon in relation to the number of negative stimuli. Animal Behaviour, 15, 79-81. doi: 10.1016/S0003-3472(67)80015-0

Williams, D. I. (1968). Discrimination learning in the pigeon following unreinforced training on the negative stimulus. Animal Behaviour, 16, 336-337. doi: 10.1016/0003-3472(68)90018-3

Zentall, T. R., Wasserman, E. A., y Urcuioli, P. J. (2014). Associative concept learning in animals. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 101, 130-151. doi: 10.1002/jeab.55




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.6018/analesps.34.2.307401

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2018 Servicio de Publicaciones, Universidad de Murcia (Spain)

Open AccessSello de Calidad FECyT 2013ClarivAnaliticsWJ.jpgScielo-Españadoajscimago