Advertisement

The Psychological Record

, Volume 64, Issue 4, pp 693–702 | Cite as

Generalized Identity Matching-to-Sample After Multiple-Exemplar Training in Capuchin Monkeys

  • Ana Leda F. Brino
  • Olavo F. Galvão
  • Carlos R. F. Picanço
  • Romariz S. Barros
  • Carlos B. A. Souza
  • Paulo R. K. Goulart
  • William J. McIlvane
Original Article

Abstract

A multiple-exemplar identity matching-to-sample baseline was established to encourage development of generalized identity matching-to-sample (IDMTS) performances in three adult male capuchins. Mask (blank comparison) or Shuffled S- procedures were used to promote select (sample-S+) control in baseline relations and to assess stimulus control relations in generalized IDMTS tests. The IDMTS baseline comprised eight 3-stimulus sets or four 4-stimulus sets. Probe trials with new stimulus sets were substituted for baseline sets in successive testing sessions and subsequently converted to new baseline relations. All monkeys exhibited high accuracy on generalized IDMTS tests. A monkey who was given the Mask procedure in training and tests showed generalized IDMTS with select relations predominating. Two monkeys who were given training and testing with the Shuffled S- procedure performed somewhat better on Shuffled S- IDMTS test trials than on test trials that contained nonshuffled IDMTS trials, thus suggesting that exclusion of familiar nonmatching comparison stimuli from baseline in Shuffled S- test trials contributed to the higher accuracy scores with the former procedure. Development of select relations appeared to be a positive predictor of development of generalized IDMTS.

Keywords

Generalized identity matching-to-sample Multiple-exemplar training Select and reject relations Capuchin monkeys 

Notes

Author Notes

Support for this research was provided by grants from the Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technologic Development (CNPq) to the authors. Additional support was provided by CNPq (573972/2008-7) and Research Support Foundation of São Paulo State (FAPESP 08/57705-8) to National Institute of Science and Technology on Behavior, Cognition and Education. The last author’s participation was supported by NIH grants ES15464 and MH90272.

We thank Klena Sarges for medical-veterinarian assistance and Edilson F. Pastana for managing the animals. 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.

References

  1. Alfaro, J. W. L., Silva, J. S., & 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Barros, R. S., Galvão, O. F., & McIlvane, W. J. (2002). Generalized identity matching-to-sample in Cebus apella. The Psychological Record, 52, 441–460. Retrieved from http://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/tpr/vol52/iss1/.Google Scholar
  3. Boren, J. J., & Sidman, M. (1957). A discrimination based upon repeated conditioning and extinction of avoidance behaviour. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 50(1), 18–22. doi: 10.1037/h0045142.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 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), 2–11. Retrieved from http://www.cienciasecognicao.org.Google Scholar
  5. Cumming, W. W., & Berryman, R. (1961). Some data on matching behavior in the pigeon. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 4, 281–284. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1961.4-281.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 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
  7. Dube, W. V., & McIlvane, W. J. (1996). Some implications of a stimulus control topography analysis for emergent behavior and stimulus classes. In T. R. Zentall & P. M. Blackman (Eds.), Stimulus class formation in humans and animals (pp. 197–218). North-Holland: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dube, W. V., McIlvane, W. J., & Green, G. (1992). An analysis of generalized identity matching-to-sample test procedures. The Psychological Record, 42(1), 17–28.Google Scholar
  9. Fujita, F. (1983). Formation of the sameness-difference concept by Japanese monkeys from a small number of color stimuli. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 40, 289–300. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1983.40-289.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Galvão, O. F., Barros, R. S., Santos, J. R., Brino, A. L. F., Brandão, S., Lavratti, C. M., & McIlvane, W. J. (2005). Extent and limits of matching concept in Cebus apella: A matter of experimental control? The Psychological Record, 55, 219–232. Retrieved from http://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/tpr/vol55/iss2/3/.Google Scholar
  11. Goldman, M., & Shapiro, S. (1979). Matching-to-sample and oddity-from-sample in goldfish. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 31, 259–266. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1979.31-259.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Herman, L. M., Gory, J. D. G., Hovancic, J. R., & Bradshaw, G. L. (1989). Generalization of visual matching by bottlenosed dolphin (Tursiops truncatus): evidence for invariance of cognitive performance with visual and auditory materials. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 15, 124–136. doi: 10.1037/0097-7403.15.2.124.Google Scholar
  13. Iversen, I. H., Sidman, M., & Carrigan, P. (1986). Stimulus definition in conditional discriminations. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 45, 297–304. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1986.45-297.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Johnson, C., & Sidman, M. (1993). Conditional discrimination and equivalence relations: control by negative stimulus. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 59, 333–347. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1993.59-333.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Kastak, D., & Schusterman, R. J. (1994). Transfer of visual identity matching-to-sample in two California sea lions (Zalophus californianus). Animal Learning & Behavior, 22, 427–435. doi: 10.3758/BF03209162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lazareva, O. F., & Wasserman, E. A. (2008). Categories and concepts in animals. In R. Menzel (Ed.), Learning and memory: A comprehensive reference: Vol. 1. Learning theory and behavior (pp. 197–226). Oxford, England: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lionello, K. M., & Urcuioli, P. J. (1998). Control by sample location in pigeon’s matching to sample. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 70, 235–251. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1998.70-235.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 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
  19. McIlvane, W. J. (1992). Stimulus control analysis and nonverbal instructional technology for people with intellectual handicaps. In N. R. Bray (Ed.), International review of research in mental retardation (Vol. 18, pp. 55–109). New York, NY: Academic.Google Scholar
  20. McIlvane, W. J. (2012). Simple and complex discrimination learning. In G. J. Madden (Ed.), APA handbook of behavior analysis (pp. 129–163). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  21. McIlvane, W. J., & Stoddard, L. T. (1981). Acquisition of matching-to-sample performances in severe retardation: Learning by exclusion. Journal of Mental Deficiency Research, 25, 33–48. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2788.1981.tb00091.x.
  22. McIlvane, W. J., Bass, R. W., O’Brien, J. M., Gerovac, B. J., & Stoddard, L. T. (1984). Spoken and signed naming of foods after receptive exclusion training in severe retardation. Applied Research in Mental Retardation, 5, 1–27.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 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. doi: 10.1037/0097-7403.1.4.326.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Oden, D. L., Thompson, R. K. R., & Premack, D. (1988). Spontaneous transfer of matching by infant chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 14, 140–145. doi: 10.1037/0097-7403.14.2.140.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 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 & Behavior, 19, 37–48. doi: 10.3758/BF03197858.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rico, V. V., Brino, A. L. F., Goulart, P. R. K., & Galvão, O. F. (2013). From simple to conditional discrimination: A teaching program for capuchin monkeys. Manuscript in preparation.Google Scholar
  27. Sidman, M. (1987). Two choices are not enough. Behavior Analysis, 22, 11–18. Retrieved from http://www.equivalence.net/pdf/Sidman_1987.pdf.Google Scholar
  28. Sidman, M., & Stoddard, L. T. (1966). Programming perception and learning for retarded children. In N. R. Ellis (Ed.), International review of research in mental retardation (Vol. 2, pp. 151–208). New York, NY: Academic.Google Scholar
  29. Souza, C. B. A., Borges, R. P., Goulart, P. R. K., Barros, R. S., & Galvão, O. F. (2009). Testes de identidade generalizada com objetos em macaco-prego (Cebus apella) [Generalized identity tests with objects in capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella)]. Psicologia: Teoria e Pesquisa, 25, 169–178. Retrieved from http://www.scielo.br/pdf/ptp/v25n2/a04v25n2.pdf.
  30. Truppa, V., Garofoli, D., Castorina, G., Mortari, E. P., Natale, F., & Visalbergui, E. (2010). Identity concept learning in matching-to-sample tasks by tufted capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella). Animal Cognition, 13, 835–848. doi: 10.1007/s10071-010-0332-y.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Weinstein, B. (1941). Matching-from-sample by rhesus monkeys and by children. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 41, 195–213. doi: 10.1037/h0063449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Zentall, T. R., & Hogan, D. E. (1974). Abstract concept learning in the pigeon. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 102, 393–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association of Behavior Analysis International 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ana Leda F. Brino
    • 1
    • 3
  • Olavo F. Galvão
    • 1
  • Carlos R. F. Picanço
    • 1
  • Romariz S. Barros
    • 1
  • Carlos B. A. Souza
    • 1
  • Paulo R. K. Goulart
    • 1
  • William J. McIlvane
    • 2
  1. 1.Universidade Federal do ParáBelémBrazil
  2. 2.University of Massachusetts Medical SchoolWorcesterUSA
  3. 3.Núcleo de Teoria e Pesquisa do ComportamentoUniversidade Federal do ParáBelémBrazil

Personalised recommendations