The Psychological Record

, Volume 42, Issue 1, pp 17–28 | Cite as

An Analysis of Generalized Identity Matching-to-Sample Test Procedures

  • William V. Dube
  • William J. McIlvane
  • Gina Green
Article

Abstract

This paper examines issues that must be considered when evaluating generalized identity matching to sample. We suggest that (a) stimuli displayed together on tests of generalized identity matching should have comparable experimental histories, and (b) identity matching procedures should be differentiated as either “conditional” or “nonconditional,” depending upon whether or not conditional discrimination is required. Although either type of procedure might be adequate for demonstrating a “matching concept,” we suggest that only generalized conditional identity matching provides an adequate test for the reflexive property of conditional relations.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. BARNES, D., MCCULLAGH, P. D., & KEENAN, M. (1990). Equivalence class formation in non-hearing impaired children and hearing impaired children. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 8, 19–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. BUSH, K. M., SIDMAN, M., & De ROSE, T. (1989). Contextual control of emergent equivalence relations. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 51, 29–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. CARTER, D. E., & WERNER, T. J. (1978). Complex learning and information processing by pigeons: A critical analysis. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 29, 565–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. D’AMATO, M. R., & COLOMBO, M. (1989). On the limits of the matching concept in monkeys (Cebus apella). Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 52, 225–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. D’AMATO, M. R., SALMON, D., 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. DEVANY, J. M., HAYES, S. C., & NELSON, R. O. (1986). Equivalence class formation in language-able and language-disabled children. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 46, 243–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. DIXON, L. S. (1977). The nature of control by spoken words over visual stimulus selection. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 27, 433–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. DIXON, M. H., DIXON, L. S., & SPRADLIN, J. E. (1983). Analysis of individual differences of stimulus control among developmentally disabled children. In K. D. Gadow & I. Bialer (Eds.), Advances in Learning and Behavioral Disabilities, 2, 85–110. New York: Jai Press.Google Scholar
  10. DUBE, W. V., IENNACO, F. M., ROCCO, F., KLEDARAS, J. B., & MCILVANE, W. J. (in press). Microcomputer-based programmed instruction in identity matching to sample for persons with severe disabilities. Journal of Behavioral Education.Google Scholar
  11. DUBE, W. V., MCILVANE, W. J., MAGUIRE, R. A., MACKAY H. A., & STODDARD, L. T. (1989). Stimulus class formation and stimulus- reinforcer relations. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 51, 65–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. FIELDS, L., VERHAVE, T., & FATH, S. (1984). Stimulus equivalence and transitive associations: A methodological analysis. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 42, 143–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. HARLOW, H. F. (1949). The formation of learning sets. Psychological Review, 56, 51–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. HAYES, S. C. (1989). Nonhumans have not yet shown stimulus equivalence. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 51, 385–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. HAYES, L. J., THOMPSON, S., & HAYES, S. C. (1989). Stimulus equivalence and rule following. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 52, 275–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. HERMAN, L. M., & ARBEIT, W. R. (1973). Stimulus control and auditory discrimination learning sets in the bottlenosed dolphin. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 19, 379–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. HERMAN, L. M., HOVANCIK, J. R., GORY, J. D., & BRADSHAW, G. L. (1989). Generalization of visual matching by a bottlenosed dolphin (Tursiops truncatus): Evidence for invariance of cognitive performance with visual and auditory materials. Journal of the Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 15, 124–136.Google Scholar
  18. KELLEHER, R. T. (1958). Stimulus-producing responses in chimpanzees. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior. 1, 87–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. LANCIONI, G. E., & SMEETS, P. M. (1986). Procedures and parameters of errorless discrimination training with developmentally impaired individuals. In N. R. Ellis & N. W. Bray (Eds.), International Review of Research in Mental Retardation, Vol. 14 (pp. 135–164). New York: Academic PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. MCILVANE, W. J., DUBE, W. V., KLEDARAS, J. B., IENNACO, F. M., & STODDARD, L. T. (1990). Teaching relational discrimination to mentally retarded individuals: Some problems and possible solutions. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 95, 283–296.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. MCILVANE, W. J., KLEDARAS, J. B., MUNSON, L. C., KING, K. A., De ROSE, J. C., & STODDARD, L. T. (1987). Controlling relations in conditional discrimination and matching by exclusion. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 48, 187–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. MCILVANE, W. J., MUNSON, L. C., & STODDARD, L. T. (1988). Some observations on control by spoken words in childrens’ conditional discrimination and matching by exclusion. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 45, 472–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. MCILVANE, W. J., & STODDARD, L. T. (1981). Acquisition of matching-to- sample performances in severe mental retardation: Learning by exclusion. Journal of Mental Deficiency Research, 25, 33–48.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. MCILVANE, W. J., & STODDARD, L. T. (1985). Complex stimulus relations and exclusion in mental retardation. Analysis and Intervention in Developmental Disabilities, 5, 307–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. MCILVANE, W. J., WITHSTANDLEY, J. K., & STODDARD, L. T. (1984). Positive and negative stimulus relations in severely retarded persons’ conditional discriminations. Analysis and Intervention in Developmental Disabilities. 4 235–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. MCINTIRE, K. D., CLEARY, J., & THOMPSON, T. (1987). Conditional relations by monkeys: Reflexivity, symmetry, and transitivity. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 47, 279–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. MCINTIRE, K. D., CLEARY, J., & THOMPSON, T. (1989). Reply to Saunders and Hayes. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 51, 393–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. MISHKIN, M., & DELACOUR, J. (1975). An analysis of short-term visual memory in the monkey. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 1, 326–334.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. ODEN, D. L., THOMPSON, R. K. R., & PREMACK, D. (1988). Spontaneous transfer of matching by infant chimpanzees. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 14, 140–145.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. OVERMAN W. H., & DOTY, R. W. (1980). Prolonged visual memory in macaques and man. Neuroscience, 5, 1825–1831.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. PACK, A. A., HERMAN, L. M., & ROITBLAT, H. L. (1991). Generalization of visual matching and delayed matching by a California sea lion (Zalophus californianus). Animal Learning and Behavior, 19, 37–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. PREMACK, D. (1978). On the abstractness of human concepts: Why it would be difficult to talk to a pigeon. In S. H. Hulse, H. Fowler, & W. K. Honig (Eds.), Cognitive processes in animal behavior (pp. 423–451). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  33. SAUNDERS, K. J. (1989). Naming in conditional discrimination and stimulus equivalence. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 51, 379–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. SAUNDERS, R. R., SAUNDERS, K. J., KIRBY, K. C., & SPRADLIN, J. E. (1988). The merger and development of equivalence classes by unreinforced conditional selection of comparison stimuli. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 50, 145–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. SCHUSTERMAN, R. J., & GISINER, R. C. (1989). Please parse the sentence: Animal cognition in the procrustean bed of linguistics. The Psychological Record, 39, 3–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. SCHUSTERMAN, R. J., GISINER, R., GRIMM, B. K., & HANGGI, E. B. (in press). Behavior control by exclusion and attempts at establishing semanticity in marine mammals using match-to-sample paradigms. In H. Roitblat, L. Herman, & P. Nachtigall (Eds.), Language and communication: Comparative perspectives. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  37. SIDMAN, M. (1980). A note on the measurement of conditional discrimination. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 33, 285–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. SIDMAN, M. (1986). Functional analysis of emergent verbal classes. In T. Thompson & M. D. Zeiler (Eds.), Analysis and integration of behavioral units (pp. 213–245). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  39. SIDMAN, M., & STODDARD, L. T. (1967). The effectiveness of fading in programming a simultaneous form discrimination for retarded children. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 10, 3–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. STROMER, R. (1986). Control by exclusion in arbitrary matching to sample. Analysis and Intervention in Developmental Disabilities, 6, 59–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. TERRACE, H. S. (1963). Discrimination learning with and without “errors”. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 6, 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. THOMAS D. R., & SCHMIDT, E. K. (1989). Does conditional discrimination learning by pigeons necessarily involve hierarchical relationships? Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 52, 249–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. VAUGHAN, W., Jr. (1989). Reply to Hayes. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 51, 397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. WASHBURN, D. A., HOPKINS, W. D., & RUMBAUGH, D. M. (1989). Video-task assessment of learning and memory in macaques (Macaca mulatta): Effects of stimulus movement on performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 15, 393–400.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. WEINSTEIN, B. (1941). Matching-from-sample by rhesus monkeys and by children. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 31, 195–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. WRIGHT, A. A., COOK, R. G., & KENDRICK, D. K. (1989). Relational and absolute stimulus learning by monkeys in a memory task. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 52, 237–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. WRIGHT, A. A., COOK, R. G., RIVERA, J. J., SANDS, S. F., & DELIUS, J. D. (1988). Concept learning by pigeons: Matching-to-sample with trial- unique video picture stimuli. Animal Learning and Behavior, 16, 436–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. WRIGHT, A. A., URCUIOLI, P. J., & SANDS, S. F. (1986). Proactive interference in animal memory. In D. F. Kendrick, M. E. Rilling, & M. R. Denny (Eds.), Theories of animal memory (pp. 101–125). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  50. WYCKOFF, L. B., Jr. (1952). The role of observing responses in discrimination learning: Part I. Psychological Review, 59, 431–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. WYCKOFF, L. B., Jr. (1969). The role of observing responses in discrimination learning. In D. P. Hendry (Ed.), Conditioned reinforcement (pp. 237–260). Homewood, IL: Dorsey.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association of Behavior Analysis International 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • William V. Dube
    • 1
  • William J. McIlvane
    • 1
  • Gina Green
    • 1
  1. 1.Behavioral Sciences Department, E. K. Shriver CenterNortheastern UniversityWalthamUSA

Personalised recommendations