medigraphic.com
Órgano Oficial del Sistema Mexicano de Investigación en Psicología (SMIP)

2011, Number 1

<< Back Next >>

Rev Mex Invest Psic 2011; 3 (1)

Conditional discrimination by pigeons: A parametric and functional analysis

Serrano M

Language: Spanish
References: 59
Page: 44-58
PDF size: 296.01 Kb.


ABSTRACT

The effects of different parameters that modulate accuracy under matching-to-sample procedures with pigeons are described. These parameters are discussed in terms of the Contingency Contrast Model. It is suggested the need to include in such model the functional proprieties of organism’s activity as elements that increase or decrease the difference within and between contingency structures.


REFERENCES

  1. Alling, K., Nickel, M., & Poling, A. (1991). The effects of differential and no differential outcomes on response rates and accuracy under a delayed-matching-to-sample procedure. The Psychological Record, 41, 537-549.

  2. Berryman, R., Cumming, W. W. & Nevin, J. A. (1963). Acquisition of delayed matching in the pigeon. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 6, 101-107.

  3. Brodigan, D. L., & Peterson, G. B. (1976). Two-choice conditional discrimination performance of pigeons as a function of reward expectancy, prechoice delay, and domesticity. Animal Learning & Behavior, 4, 121-124.

  4. Cabrer, F., Daza, C., & Ribes, E. (1975). Teoría de la conducta: ¿Nuevos conceptos o nuevos parámetros? Revista Mexicana de Análisis de la Conducta, 1, 191-212.

  5. Camacho, I. (2009). The contingency contrast model: An explanatory alternative. Mexican Journal of Behavior Analysis, 35, Monográfico, 31-43.

  6. Camacho, I., Serrano, M., & Carpio, C. (2008). Contingency contrast in matching to sample with university students. International Journal of Hispanic Psychology, 1, 115-124.

  7. Carpio, C., Flores, C., Bautista, E., González, F., Pacheco, V., Páez, A., & Canales, C. (2001). Análisis experimental de las funciones contextual y selectora. En G. Mares & Y. Guevara (Eds.), Psicología interconductual: Avances en la investigación básica (pp. 9-35). México: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.

  8. Carpio, C., Flores, C., Hernández, R., Pacheco, V., & Romero, P. (1995). Parámetros temporales en igualación de la muestra contingente y no contingente. Acta Comportamentalia, 3, 15-25.

  9. Carter, D. E., & Eckerman, D. A. (1975). Symbolic matching by pigeons: Rate of learning complex discriminations predicted from simple discriminations. Science, 187, 662-664.

  10. Cohen, L. R., Brady, J., & Lowry, M. (1981). The role of differential responding in matching-to-sample and delayed matching performance. En M. L. Commons, & J. A. Nevin (Eds.), Quantitative analysis of behavior: Discrimination proprieties of reinforcement schedules (pp. 345-364). Cambridge, Massachusetts: Ballinger Publishing Company.

  11. Cohen, L. R., Looney, T. A., Brady, J. H., & Aucella, A. F. (1976). Differential sample response schedules in the acquisition of conditional discrimination by pigeons. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 26, 301-314.

  12. Cumming. W. W., & Berryman, R. (1965). The complex discriminated operant: studies of matching-to-sample and related problems. En D. I. Mostofsky (Ed.), Stimulus generalization (pp. 284-330). Stanford: Stanford University Press.

  13. Cumming. W. W., & Berryman, R. (1961). Some data on matching behavior in the pigeon. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 4, 281-284.

  14. DeLong, R. E., & Wasserman, E. A. (1981). Effects of differential reinforcement expectancies on successive matchingto- sample performance in pigeons. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 7,394-412.

  15. Dorrance, B. R., Kaiser, D. H., & Zentall, T. R. (2000). Eventduration discrimination by pigeons: The choose-short effect may result from retention-test novelty. Animal Learning & Behavior, 28, 344-353.

  16. Eckerman, D. A., Lanson, R. N., & Cumming, W. W. (1968). Acquisition and maintenance of matching without a required observing response. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 11, 435-441.

  17. Goeters, S., Blakely, E., & Poling, A. (1992). The differential outcomes effect. The Psychological Record, 42, 389-411.

  18. Grant, D. S. (1976). Effect of sample presentation time on long delay matching in the pigeon. Learning and Motivation, 7, 580-590.

  19. Grant, D. S., & Spetch, M. L. (1994). The role of asymmetrical coding of duration samples in producing the chooseshort effect in pigeons. Learning and Motivation, 25, 413-430.

  20. Grant, D. S., & Spetch, M. L. (1991). Pigeons’ memory for event duration: differences between choice and successive matching task. Learning and Motivation, 22, 180-199.

  21. Hartl, J. A., Dougherty, D. H., & Wixted, J. T. (1996). Separating the effects of trial-specific and average sample-stimulus duration in delayed matching to sample in pigeons. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 66, 231- 242.

  22. Holt, G. L., & Shaffer, J. N. (1973). Function of intertrial interval in matching to sample. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 19, 181-186.

  23. Hulse, S. H., Fowler, H., & Honig, W. K. (1977). Cognitive processes in animal behavior. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum.

  24. Jenkins, H. M., & Moore, B. R. (1973). The form of the autoshaped responses with food or water reinforcers. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 20, 163-181.

  25. Kantor, J. R. (1959). Interbehavioral psychology: A sample of scientific system construction. Grandville, OH: Principia Press.

  26. Kendrick, D. F., Rilling, M. E., & Denny, M. R. (1986). Theories of animal memory. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum.

  27. Kraemer, P. J., Mazmanian, D. S., & Roberts, W. A. (1985). The choose-short effect in pigeon memory for stimulus duration: subjective shortening versus coding models. Animal Learning & Behavior, 13, 349-354.

  28. Kraemer, P. J., & Roberts, W. A. (1984). Short-term memory for visual and auditory stimuli in pigeons. Animal Learning & Behavior, 12, 275-284.

  29. Kuhn, T. S. (1982). Objetividad, juicios de valor y elección de teoría. En T. S. Kuhn (Ed.), La tensión esencial: Estudios selectos sobre la tradición y el cambio en el ámbito de la ciencia (pp.344-364). México: Fondo de Cultura Económica.

  30. Lattal, K. A. (1975). Reinforcement contingencies as discriminative stimuli. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 23, 241-246.

  31. Lashley, K. S. (1938). Conditional reactions in the rat. Journal of Psychology, 6, 311-324.

  32. Lydersen, T., & Perkins, D. (1974). Effects of response-produced stimuli upon conditional discrimination performance. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 21, 307-314.

  33. Lydersen, T., Perkins, D. & Chairez, H. (1977). Effects of fixed-ratio sample and choice response requirement upon oddity matching. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 25, 97-101.

  34. Mackay, H. A. (1991). Conditional stimulus control. En I. H. Iversen & K. A. Lattal (Eds.), Techniques in the behavioral and neural sciences: Vol. 6 Experimental analysis of behavior, Part1 (pp. 301-350). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

  35. Medin, D. L., Roberts, W. A., & Davis, R. T. (1976). Processes of animal memory, Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum.

  36. Nelson, K. R., & Wasserman, E. A. (1978). Temporal factors influencing the pigeon’s successive matching-to-sample performance: Sample duration, intertrial interval, and retention interval. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 30, 153-62.

  37. Ribes, E. (2004). Acerca de las funciones psicológicas: Un postscriptum. Acta Comportamentalia, 11, 1-22.

  38. Ribes, E. (1998). La investigación básica concebida como programa científico. En V. M. Alcaráz Alcaráz & A. Bouzas (Eds.), Las aportaciones mexicanas a la psicología: La perspectiva de la investigación (pp. 89-101). México: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.

  39. Ribes, E. (1995). Causalidad y contingencia. Revista Mexicana de Análisis de la Conducta, 21, 133-150.

  40. Ribes, E., & López, F. (1985). Teoría de la conducta: Un análisis de campo y paramétrico. México: Trillas.

  41. Ribes, E., & Montes, E. (2009). Interacción de la privación de agua y los estímulos correlacionados con la entrega de agua en programas de reforzamiento continuo y de intervalo. Revista Mexicana de Análisis de la Conducta, 35, Monográfico, 61-85.

  42. Roberts, W. A. (1972). Short-term memory in the pigeon: Effects of repetition and spacing. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 94, 74-83.

  43. Roberts, W. A., & Grant, D. S. (1976). Studies of short-term memory in the pigeon using the delayed matching to sample procedure. En D. L., Medin, W. A., Roberts, & R., T. Davis (1976). Processes of animal memory (pp. 79-112). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum.

  44. Roberts, W. A., & Kraemer, P. J. (1982). Some observation of the effects of intertrial interval and delay on delayed matching to sample in pigeons. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 8, 342-353.

  45. Roitblat, H. L., Bever, T. G., & Terrace, H. S. (1984). Animal cognition. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum.

  46. Santi, A. (1984). The trial spacing effect in delayed matchingto- sample by pigeons is dependent upon the illumination condition during the intertrial interval. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 38, 154-165.

  47. Santi, A., Bridson, S., & Ducharme, M. J. (1993). Memory codes for temporal and nontemporal sample in many-toone matching by pigeons. Animal Learning & Behavior, 21, 120-130.

  48. Sargisson. R. J., & White, K. G. (2001). Generalization on delayed matching to sample following training at different delays. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 75, 1-14.

  49. Serrano, M. (2009). Complejidad e inclusividad progresivas: algunas implicaciones y evidencias empíricas en el caso de las funciones contextual, suplementaria y selectora. Revista Mexicana de Análisis de la Conducta, 35, Monográfico, 161- 178.

  50. Sidman, M. (1994). Equivalence relations and behavior: A research story. Boston: Authors cooperative.

  51. Skinner, B. F. (1950). Are theories of learning necessary? Psychological Review, 57, 193-216.

  52. Skinner, B. F. (1938). The behavior of organisms: An experimental analysis. New York: Appleton Century Crofts.

  53. Spetch, M. L., & Wilkie, D. M. (1983). Subjective shorting: A model for pigeons’ memory for event duration. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 9, 14-30.

  54. Trapold, M. A., & Overmier, J. B. (1972). The second learning process in instrumental learning. En A. H. Black & W. F. Prokasy (Eds.), Classical conditioning II: Current theory and research (pp. 427-452). New York: Appleton Century Crofts.

  55. Urcuioli, P. J., DeMarse, T. B., & Lionello, K. M. (1999). Sample-duration effects on pigeons’ delayed matching as a function of predictability of duration. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 72, 279-297.

  56. Urcuioli, P. J., & Zentall, T. R. (1986). Retrospective memory in pigeon’s delayed matching to sample. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 12, 69-77.

  57. Wilkie, D. M., & Spetch, M. L. (1978). The effect of sample and comparison ratio schedules on delayed matching to sample in the pigeon. Animal Learning & Behavior, 6, 273-278.

  58. Wixted, J. T. (1989). Nonhuman short-term memory: A quantitative reanalysis of selected findings. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 52, 409-426.

  59. Zentall, T. R., Hogan, D. E., Howard, M. M., & Moore, B. S. (1978). Delayed matching in the pigeon: Effect on performance of sample-specific observing responses and differential delay behavior. Learning and Motivation, 9, 202-218.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com