The Psychological Record

, Volume 65, Issue 1, pp 131–139 | Cite as

Symmetry Evaluation by Comparing Acquisition of Conditional Relations in Successive (Go/No-Go) Matching-to-Sample Training

  • Carlos R. F. Picanço
  • Romariz S. Barros
Original Article


The successive matching-to-sample (go/no-go) procedure has been shown to be an effective procedure for reducing stimulus-control digressions in conditional-relation training with nonhuman subjects. In addition, comparison of acquisition between symmetrical and nonsymmetrical conditional discriminations may be one effective way to evaluate the properties of equivalence relations. This study evaluated symmetry (one of the properties of equivalence relations) using both of these methods with two capuchin monkeys (Sapajus spp.). The acquisition of symmetric (Condition A) and nonsymmetric (Condition B) conditional discriminations was compared. In both conditions, two forward (AB) and two backward (BA) relations were simultaneously trained. New stimuli were used in each condition. The data demonstrated that the method reported here was an efficient way to assess the property of symmetry, which was clearly present in the conditional relations learned by one of the subjects (Conditions A1 and A2) and possibly absent in the conditional relations learned by the other (Condition A1). The present study supports the argument that the comparison of the acquisition of forward and backward relations, that are trained simultaneously, is a promising procedure for evaluating the properties of equivalence relations in nonhuman subjects.


Equivalence classes Symmetry Go/no-go Sapajus spp 



This research was supported by grants from the Brazilian Coordination for Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES) to the first author and from the Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technologic Development (CNPq) to the second author. Additional support was provided by the Research Support Foundation of São Paulo State (FAPESP 08/57705-8) to the National Institute of Science and Technology on Behavior, Cognition and Education (INCT-ECCE).

Concerning our animals, readers of past articles from our laboratory may wonder why we have not mentioned the capuchin species Cebus apella in this text. Until recently, capuchins were broadly termed Cebus monkeys. Now, they are divided into two genera (cf. Alfaro et al. 2012): Sapajus (tufted) and Cebus (untufted). Our monkeys are of the former genus.

We thank Klena Sarges for medical-veterinarian assistance and Edilson F. Pastana for managing the animals. We also thank Olavo Galvão for sharing laboratory facilities, Gerson Tomanari for discussing the data with us, and Karen Lionello-DeNolf for reviewing previous version of the manuscript.


  1. Alfaro, J. W. L., Silva, J. D., Jr., & Rylands, A. B. (2012). How different are robust and gracile capuchin monkeys? An argument for the use of Sapajus and Cebus. American Journal of Primatology, 74, 273–286.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barros, R. S., Galvão, O. F., & Fontes, J. C. S. (1996). A symmetry test after conditional relation training with locations as stimuli in a Ateles paniscus paniscus monkey. Acta Comportamentalia, 4, 181–204.Google Scholar
  3. Barros, R. S., Picanço, C. R. F., Costa, T. D., & Souza, C. B. A. (2012). Learning-set of simple discrimination reversals in capuchin monkey. Interação em Psicologia (Online), 16, 1–12.Google Scholar
  4. Boelens, H. (2002). Studying stimulus equivalence: defense of the two-choice procedure. The Psychological Record, 52, 305–314.Google Scholar
  5. Brino, A. L. F. (2007). Stimulus relation training and testing procedures in Cebus apella. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Belém, Brasil: Universidade Federal do Pará.Google Scholar
  6. Brino, A. L. F., Galvão, O. F., & Barros, R. S. (2009). Successive identity matching to sample tests without reinforcement in Cebus apella. Ciências & Cognição, 14, 2–15.Google Scholar
  7. Brino, A. L. F., Galvão, O. F., Picanço, C. R. F., Barros, R. S., Souza, C. B. A., Goulart, P. R. K., & McIlvane, W. J. (in press). Generalized identity matching to sample after multiple-exemplar training in capuchin monkeys. The Psychological Record.Google Scholar
  8. Cruz, I. R. N., Picanço, C. R. F., & Barros, R. S. (2010). The use of mask procedure to evaluate stimulus control relations in capuchin monkeys. Brazilian Journal of Behavior Analysis, 6, 55–66.Google Scholar
  9. Cumming, W. W., & Berryman, R. (1961). Some data on matching behavior in the pigeon. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 4, 281–284.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cumming, W. W., & Berryman, R. (1965). The complex discriminated operant: Studies of matching-to-sample and related problems. In D. I. Mostofsky (Ed.), Stimulus generalization (pp. 284–330). Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. 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. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1985.44-35.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dube, W. V., & McIlvane, W. J. (1996). Some implications of a stimulus control topography analysis for emergent stimulus class. In T. R. Zental & P. M. Smeets (Eds.), Stimulus class formation in humans and animals (pp. 197–218). Amsterdam: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dugdale, N., & Lowe, C. F. (2000). Testing for symmetry in the conditional discriminations of language-trained chimpanzees. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 73, 5–22. doi: 10.1901/jeab.2000.73-5.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dymond, S., Gomez-Martin, S., & Barnes, D. (1996). Multi-modal conditional discrimination in rats: some preliminary findings. The Irish Journal of Psychology, 17, 269–281. doi: 10.1080/3033910.1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Frank, A. J. (2007). An examination of the temporal and spatial stimulus control in emergent symmetry in pigeons. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Iowa.Google Scholar
  16. 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.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Galvão, O. F., Calcagno, S., & Sidman, M. (1992). Testing for emergent performances in extinction. Experimental Analysis of Human Behavior Bulletin, 10, 18–20.Google Scholar
  18. Galvão, O. F., Barros, R. S., Lima, S. B., Lavratti, C. M., Santos, J. R., Brino, A. L. F., & McIlvane, W. J. (2005). Extent and limits of the matching concept in Cebus apella: a matter of experimental control? The Psychological Record, 55, 219–232.Google Scholar
  19. García, A., & Benjumea, A. (2006). The emergence of symmetry in a conditional discrimination task using different responses as proprioceptive samples in pigeons. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 86, 65–80.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gray, L. (1966). Backward association in pigeons. Psychonomic Science, 4, 333–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hogan, D. E., & Zentall, T. R. (1977). Backward associations in pigeon. American Journal of Psychology, 90, 3–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Holmes, P. W. (1979). Transfer of matching performance in pigeons. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 31, 103–114. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1979.31-103.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Iversen, I. H. (1997). Matching-to-sample performance in rats: a case of mistaken identity? Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 45, 297–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Iversen, I. H., Sidman, M., & Carrigan, P. (1986). Stimulus definition in conditional discriminations. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 45, 297–304.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Johnson, C., & Sidman, M. (1993). Conditional discrimination and equivalence relations: control by negative stimuli. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 59, 333–347. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1993.59-333.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kastak, D., & Schusterman, R. J. (1994). Transfer of visual identity matching-to-sample in two California sealions (Zalophus californianus). Animal Learning & Behavior, 22, 427–435Google Scholar
  27. Kastak, C. R., Schusterman, R. J., & Kastak, D. (2001). Equivalence classification by California sea lions using class-specific reinforcers. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 76, 131–158.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Konorski, J. (1959). A new method of physiological investigation of recent memory in animals. Bulletin De L'Academie Polonaise Des Sciences, 7, 115–117.Google Scholar
  29. 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. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1994.62-399.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lionello-DeNolf, K. M. (2009). The search for symmetry: 25 years in review. Learning & Behavior, 37, 188–203. doi: 10.3758/LB.37.2.188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lionello-DeNolf, K. M., & Urcuioli, P. J. (1998). Control by location in pigeons matching to sample. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 70, 235–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lionello-DeNolf, K. M., & Urcuioli, P. J. (2002). Stimulus control topographies and a test of symmetry in pigeons. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 78, 467–495.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lipkens, R., Kop, P. F. M., & Matthijs, M. (1988). A test of symmetry and transitivity in the conditional discrimination performances of pigeons. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 49, 395–409. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1988.49-395.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Manabe, K., Kawashima, T., & Staddon, J. E. R. (1995). Differential vocalization in budgerigars: towards an experimental analysis of naming. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 63, 111–126. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1995.63-111.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Richards, R. W. (1988). The question of bidirectional associations in pigeons’ learning of conditional discrimination tasks. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 26, 577–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rodewald, H. K. (1974). Symbolic matching-to-sample by pigeons. Psychological Reports, 34, 987–990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Schusterman, R. J., & Kastak, D. (1993). A California sea lion (Zalophus californianus) is capable of forming equivalence relations. The Psychological Record, 43, 823–839.Google Scholar
  38. Sidman, M. (1980). A note on the measurement of conditional discrimination. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 33, 285–289. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1980.33-285.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sidman, M. (1987). Two choices are not enough. Behavior Analysis, 22, 11–18.Google Scholar
  40. Sidman, M. (1994). Equivalence relations and behavior: A research story. Boston: Authors Cooperative.Google Scholar
  41. Sidman, M. (2000). Equivalence relations and the reinforcement contingency. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 74, 127–146. doi: 10.1901/jeab.2000.74-127.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sidman, M., & Tailby, W. (1982). Conditional discrimination vs. matching-to-sample: an expansion of the testing paradigm. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 37, 5–22. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1982.37-5.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sidman, M., Rauzin, R., Lazar, R., Cunninghan, S., Tailby, W., & Carrigan, P. (1982). A search for symmetry in the conditional discrimination of rhesus monkeys, baboons and children. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 37, 23–44. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1982.37-23.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Tomonaga, M. (2008). (Non-)emergence of symmetry in chimpanzees. Cognitive Studies, 15, 347–357.Google Scholar
  45. Urcuioli, P. (2008). Associative symmetry, antisymmetry, and a theory of pigeons’ equivalence-class formation. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 90, 257–282. doi: 10.1901/jeab.2008.90-257.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Velasco, S. M., & Tomanari, G. A. Y. (2009). Efeitos do treino de discriminações condicionais sobre a aquisição de relações simétricas e transitivas [Effects of conditional discrimination training on the acquisition of symmetric and transitive relations]. Acta comportamentalia, 17, 97–116.Google Scholar
  47. Velasco, S. M., & Tomanari, G. A. Y. (2011). Aprendizagem de relações simétricas ao longo do treino de discriminações condicionais [Learning symmetrical relations in conditional discrimination training]. Acta comportamentalia, 19, 149–162.Google Scholar
  48. Velasco, S. M., & Tomonari, G. A. Y. (2014). Assessing derived conditional relations under reinforcement conditions. The Psychological Record, 64, 551–558. doi: 10.1007/s40732-010-0056-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Velasco, S. M., Huziwara, E. M., Machado, A., & Tomanari, G. Y. (2010). Associative symmetry by pigeons after few-exemplar training. Journal of Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 94, 283–295. doi: 10.1901/jeab.2010.94-283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wasserman, E. A. (1976). Successive matching-to-sample in the pigeon: variations on a theme by Konorski. Behavior Research Methods & Instrumentation, 8, 278–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Yamamoto, J., & Asano, T. (1995). Stimulus equivalence in a chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes). The Psychological Record, 45, 3–21.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Behavior Analysis International 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Carlos R. F. Picanço
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Romariz S. Barros
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.Instituto Nacional de Ciência e Tecnologia: Estudos Sobre Comportamento Cognição e Ensino (INCT-ECCE)São CarlosBrazil
  2. 2.AnanindeuaBrasil
  3. 3.Universidade Federal do ParáBelémBrazil

Personalised recommendations