Abstract
The effect of stimuli dimension was assessed on the emergence of transitivity relations by the use of a go/no go procedure and the training of identity relations. Four pigeons were trained under this conditions, varying the dimension of stimuli for each pair. Two pigeons were trained on Hue–Shape (A–B), Shape–Hue (B–C) and Shape–Shape (B–B) relations so probe trials consisted of Hue–Hue (A–C), called Hue Condition, whereas the remaining pigeons were trained Shape–Hue (A–B), Hue–Shape (B–C) and Hue–Hue (B–B) so probe trials consisted of Shape–Shape (A–C), called Shape Condition. Results were presented as frequency and latencies of responses, on training trials and probe trials, showing more responses and shorter latencies for positive training trials on the four pigeons. On probe trials there was a more differentiated response for pigeons in the Hue Condition whereas for pigeons in the Shape Condition, a lack of transitivity was found. Latencies did not differ between pigeons on probe trials. The current findings are in accordance with studies of conditional discrimination and the use of different dimensions, where hue results in quicker acquisition than shapes.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data Availability
All data reported in this study are stored in the Laboratorio de Procesos Conductuales y Modelos Animales (LAPCYMA) at Centro de Estudios e Investigaciones en Comportamiento (CEIC), Universidad de Guadalajara, Jalisco. Data are available upon request from the corresponding author.
Code Availability
Code was customed and is available upon request from the corresponding author.
References
Arntzen, E. (2012). Training and testing parameters in formation of stimulus equivalence: Methodological issues. European Journal of Behavior Analysis, 13(1), 123–135. https://doi.org/10.1080/15021149.2012.11434412
Arntzen, E., & Holth, P. (1997). Probability of stimulus equivalence as a function of training design. The Psychological Record, 47, 309–320. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03395227
Arntzen, E., & Holth, P. (2000). Equivalence outcome in single subjects as a function of training structure. The Psychological Record, 50, 603–628. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03395374
Arntzen, E., & Nikolaisen, S. L. (2011). Establishing equivalence classes in children using familiar and abstract stimuli and many-to-one and one-to-many training structures. European Journal of Behavior Analysis, 12, 105–120. https://doi.org/10.1080/15021149.2011.11434358
Arntzen, E., Grondahl, T., & Eilifsen, C. (2010). The effects of different training structures in the establishment of conditional discriminations and subsequent performance on tests for stimulus equivalence. The Psychological Record, 60, 437–462. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03395720
Bentall, R. P., Jones, R. M., & Dickins, D. W. (1999). Errors and response latencies as a function of nodal distance in 5-member equivalence classes. The Psychological Record, 49(1), 93–115. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03395309
Brown, P. L., & Jenkins, H. M. (1968). Auto-shaping of the pigeons keypeck. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 11, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1968.11-1
Campos, H. C., Debert, P., Barros, R. S., & McIlvane, W. J. (2011). Relational discrimination by pigeons in a go/no-go procedure with compound stimuli: A methodological note. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 96, 417–426. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.2011.96-413
Carter, D. E., & Eckerman, D. A. (1975). Symbolic matching by pigeons: Rate of learning complex discriminations predicted from simple discriminations. Science, 187, 662–664. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1114318
Chatlosh, D. L., & Wasserman, E. A. (1993). Multidimensional stimulus control in pigeons: Selective attention and other issues. In T. R. Zentall (Ed.), Animal cognition: A tribute to Donald A. Riley (pp. 271–292). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
D’Amato, M. R., Salmon, D. P., Loukas, E., & Tomie, A. (1985). Symmetry and transitivity of conditional relations in monkeys (cebus apella) and pigeons (columba livia). Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 44, 35–47. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1985.44-35
Farthing, G. W., & Opuda, M. J. (1974). Transfer of matching to sample in pigeons. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 21, 199–213. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1974.21-199
Farthing, G. W., Wagner, J. M., Gilmour, S., & Waxman, H. M. (1977). Short-term memory and information processing in pigeons. Learning & Motivation, 8, 520–532. https://doi.org/10.1016/0023-9690(77)90049-2
Fields, L., Verhave, T., & Fath, S. (1984). Stimulus equivalence and transitive associations: A methodological analysis. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 42(1), 143–157. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1984.42-143
Frank, A. J., & Wasserman, E. A. (2005). Associative symmetry in the pigeon after successive matching-to-sample training. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 84, 147–165. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.2005.115-04
Horne, P. J., & Lowe, C. F. (1996). On the origins of naming and other symbolic behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 65, 185–241. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1996.65-185
Kendall, S. B. (1983). Tests for mediated transfer in pigeons. The Psychological Record, 33, 245–256. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03394842
Kuno, H., Kitadate, T., & Iwamoto, T. (1994). Formation of transitivity in conditional matching to sample by pigeons. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 62, 399–408. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1994.62-399
Lattal, K. A., & Doepke, K. J. (2001). Correspondence as conditional stimulus control: Insights from experiments with pigeons. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 34(2), 127–144. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2001.34-127
Lionello, K. M., & Urcuioli, P. J. (1998). Control by sample location in pigeons’ matching to sample. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 70, 235–251. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1998.70-235
Lipkens, R., Kop, P. F. M., & Matthijs, W. (1988). A test of symmetry and transitivity in the conditional discrimination performances of pigeons. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 49, 395–409. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1988.49-395
Ono, K., Kubo, N., & Masano, Y. (2011). Role of stimulus–stimulus pairing in matching-to-sample procedure: Cross-species comparison of humans and pigeons. Behavioral Processes, 88, 111–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2011.08.009
Prichard, A., Panoz-Brown, D., Bruce, K., & Galizio, M. (2015). Emergent identity but not symmetry following successive olfactory discrimination training in rats. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 104(2), 133–145. https://doi.org/10.1002/jeab.169
Saunders, R. R., Wachter, J., & Spradlin, J. E. (1988). Establishing auditory stimulus control over an eight-member equivalence class via conditional discrimination procedures. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 49, 95–115. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1988.49-95
Sidman, M. (1971). Reading and auditory-visual equivalences. Journal of Speech & Hearing Research, 14, 5–13. https://doi.org/10.1044/jshr.1401.05
Sidman, M. (1990). Equivalence relations: Where do they come from? In D. E. Blackman & H. Lejeune (Eds.), Behaviour analysis in theory and practice: Contributions and controversies (pp. 93–114). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Sidman, M. (1994). Equivalence relations and contingency analysis: The analytic units. In M. Sidman (Ed.), Equivalence relations and behavior: A research story (pp. 321–365). Authors Cooperative.
Sidman, M. (2000). Equivalence relations and the reinforcement contingency. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 74, 127–146. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.2000.74-127
Sidman, M., & Tailby, W. (1982). Conditional discrimination vs matching to simple: An expansion of the testing paradigm. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 37, 5–22. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1982.37-5
Sidman, M., Rauzin, R., Lazar, R., Cunningham, S., Tailby, W., & Carrigan, P. (1982). A search for symmetry in the conditional discriminations of rhesus monkeys, baboons, and children. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 37, 23–44. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1982.37-23
Sidman, M., Kirk, B., & Willson-Morris, M. (1985). Six-member stimulus classes generated by conditional-discrimination procedures. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 43, 21–42. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1985.43-21
Sidman, M., Wynne, C. K., Maguire, R. W., & Barnes, T. (1989). Functional classes and equivalence relations. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 52, 261–274. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1989.52-261
Strasser, R., Ehrlinger, J. M., & Bingman, V. P. (2004). Transitive behavior in hippocampal-lesioned pigeons. Brain, Behavior & Evolution, 63(3), 181–188. https://doi.org/10.1159/000076442
Swisher, M., & Urcuioli, P. J. (2013). Symmetry in the pigeon with sample and comparison stimuli in different locations. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 100, 49–60. https://doi.org/10.1002/jeab.31
Urcuioli, P. J. (1977). Transfer of oddity-from-sample performance in pigeons. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 25, 195–202. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1977.27-195
Urcuioli, P. J. (2008). Associative symmetry, antisymmetry, and a theory of pigeons’ equivalence class formation. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 90, 257–282. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.2008.90-257
Urcuioli, P. J., & Nevin, J. A. (1975). Transfer of hue matching in pigeons. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 24, 149–155. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1975.24-149
Urcuioli, P. J., & Swisher, M. (2015). Transitive and antitransitive emergent relations in pigeons: Support for a theory of stimulus-class formation. Behavioral Processes, 112, 49–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2014.07.006
Urcuioli, P. J., & Zentall, T. R. (1993). A test of comparison-stimulus substitutability following one to many matching by pigeons. The Psychological Record, 43, 745–759. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03395910
Urcuioli, P. J., Zentall, T. R., Jackson-Smith, P., & Steirn, J. N. (1989). Evidence for common coding in many to one matching: Retention, intertrial interference, and transfer. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 15(3), 264–273. https://doi.org/10.1037/0097-7403.15.3.264
Zentall, T. R., & Urcuioli, P. J. (1993). Emergent relations in the formation of stimulus classes by pigeons. The Psychological Record, 43, 795–810. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03395913
Zentall, T. R., Urcuioli, P. J., Jagielo, J. A., & Jackson-Smith, P. (1989). Interaction of sample dimension and sample-comparison mapping on pigeons’ performance of delayed conditional discriminations. Animal Learning & Behavior, 17(2), 172–178. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03207632
Zentall, T. R., Sherburne, L. M., Steirn, J. N., Randall, C. K., Roper, K. L., & Urcuioli, P. J. (1992). Common coding in pigeons: Partial versus total reversals of one-to-many conditional discriminations. Animal Learning & Behavior, 20(4), 373–381. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03197960
Zentall, T. R., Sherburne, L. M., & Steirn, J. N. (1993). Common coding and stimulus classformation in pigeons. In T. R. Zentall (Ed.), Animal cognition: A tribute to Donald A. Riley (pp. 217–238). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank Dr. Peter Urcuioli for the review and comments on the manuscript.
Funding
Research was supported by grant #251379, awarded by Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología (CONACYT—National Science and Technology Council) to the third author.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Conceptualization: Beatriz Elena Arroyo Antúnez and Carlos Javier Flores Aguirre; Methodology: Beatriz Elena Arroyo Antúnez and Carlos Javier Flores Aguirre; Formal analysis and investigation: Beatriz Elena Arroyo Antúnez and Carlos Javier Flores Aguirre, Writing—original draft preparation: Beatriz Elena Arroyo Antúnez; Writing—review and editing: Beatriz Elena Arroyo Antúnez, Cristiano Valerio Dos Santos and Carlos Javier Flores Aguirre; Funding acquisition: Beatriz Elena Arroyo Antúnez and Carlos Javier Flores Aguirre; Resources: Beatriz Elena Arroyo Antúnez and Carlos Javier Flores Aguirre; Supervision: Beatriz Elena Arroyo Antúnez, Cristiano Valerio Dos Santos and Carlos Javier Flores Aguirre; Software: Beatriz Elena Arroyo Antúnez and Carlos Javier Flores Aguirre.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethical Approval
Animal handling and management were in accordance with Centro de Estudios e Investigaciones en Comportamiento (CEIC) and by NOM-062-ZOO-1999 (Norma Oficial Mexicana).
Conflicts of Interest/Competing Interests
The authors report no conflicts of interest.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Antúnez, B.E.A., dos Santos, C.V. & Flores, C.J. Effects of Stimulus Dimension on the Emergence of Transitivity Relations. Psychol Rec 72, 633–645 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-022-00525-x
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-022-00525-x