Abstract
Conditional discrimination or matching-to-sample procedures have been used to study a wide range of complex psychological phenomena with infrahuman and human subjects. In most studies, the percentage of trials in which a subject selects the comparison stimulus that is related to the sample stimulus is used to index the control exerted by the relation between the stimuli. Performances indexed by percentage correct based on an aggregation across single trials, however, cannot identify the stimulus control topographies that exert momentary control of responding in a matching-to-sample milieu. The behavioral kernel is a unit of analysis that can provide such a measure. When a two-choice matching-to-sample procedure is used, analysis in terms of behavioral kernels permits the measurement of 16 potential stimulus control topographies. The kernel analysis provides the potential of assessing the many stimulus control topographies that control performances on a transient basis prior to the emergence of experimenter-specified conditional discriminative control. This sort of analysis could clarify the behavioral processes involved in the formation of learning set and problem-solving strategies when subjects are faced with complex discriminations, as well as the variables that influence these phenomena. As such, it is also related to accounts of discrimination learning as addressed by error-factor theory, hypothesis-based learning, and stimulus control topography coherence theory. Finally, a kernel analysis could also be used to diagnose specific sources of stimulus control that interfere with the formation of conditional discriminations by individuals with learning disabilities.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
BENTALL, R. P., DICKINS, D. W., & FOX, S. R. A. (1993). Naming and equivalence: Response latencies for emergent relations. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 46B, 187–214.
BUFFINGTON, D. M., FIELDS, L., & ADAMS, B. J. (1997). Enhancing the formation of equivalence classes by pretraining of other equivalence classes. The Psychological Record, 47, 1–20.
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.
CERUTTI, D. T., & RUMBAUGH, D. M. (1993). Stimulus relations in comparative primate perspective. The Psychological Record, 43, 811–822.
CUMMING, W. W., & BERRYMAN, R. (1961). Some data on matching behavior in the pigeon. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 4, 281–284.
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. 284–333). Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
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.
DICKINS, D. W., BENTALL, R. P., & SMITH, A. B. (1993). The role of individual stimulus names in the emergence of equivalence relations: The effects of interpolated paired-associates training of discordant associations between names. The Psychological Record, 43, 713–724.
DYMOND, S., ROCHE, B., FORSYTH, J.P., WHALEN, R., & RHODEN, J. (2008). Transformation of avoidance response functions in accordance with same and opposite relational frames. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 88, 249–262.
EIKESETH, S., & SMITH, T. (1992). The development of functional and equivalence classes in high-functioning autistic children: The role of naming. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 58, 123–134.
FIELDS, L., ADAMS, B. J., VERHAVE, T., & NEWMAN, S. (1990). The effects of nodality on the formation of equivalence classes. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 53, 345–358.
FIELDS, L., LANDON-JIMENEZ, D. V., BUFFINGTON, D. M., & ADAMS, B. J. (1995). Maintained nodal distance effects after equivalence class formation. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 64, 129–146.
FIELDS, L., & NEVIN, J. A. (1993). Special issue on stimulus equivalence. The Psychological Record, 43, 543–841.
FUCINI, A. (1982). Stimulus control of class membership. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Northeastern University, Boston.
GISINGER, R., SCHUSTERMAN, R. J. (1992). Sequence, syntax, and semantics: Responses of a language-trained sea lion (Zalophus california) to novel sign combinations. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 106, 78–91.
GOLLIN, E. S. (1966). Solution of conditional discrimination problems by young children. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 62, 454–456.
GREEN, G. (2001). Behavior analytic instruction for learners with autism: Advances in stimulus control technology. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 16, 72–85.
HARLOW, H. F. (1949). The formation of learning sets. Psychological Review, 56, 51–65.
HOLTH, P., & ARNTZEN, E. (1998). Stimulus familiarity and the delayed emergence of stimulus equivalence or consistent nonequivalence. The Psychological Record, 48, 81–110.
IMAM, A. (2001). Speed contingencies, number of stimulus presentations, and the nodality effect in equivalence class formation. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 76, 265–288.
IVERSEN, I. H. (1993). Acquisition of matching-to-sample performances in rats using visual stimuli on nose keys. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 59, 471–482.
IVERSEN. I. H. (1997). Matching-to-sample performance in rats: A case of mistaken identity? Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 68, 27–45.
IVERSEN, I. H., SIDMAN, M., & CARRIGAN, P. (1986). Stimulus definition in conditional discriminations. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 45, 297–304.
JOHNSON, C., & SIDMAN, M. (1993). Conditional discrimination and equivalence relations: Control by negative stimuli. Journal of Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 59, 333–348.
KENNEDY, C. H. (1991). Equivalence class formation influenced by the number of nodes separating stimuli. Behavioural Processes, 24, 219–245.
KENNEDY, C. L., ITKONEN, T., & LINDQUIST, K. (1994). Nodality effects during equivalence class formation: An extension to sight-word reading and concept development. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 673–683.
LEVINE, M. (1966). Hypothesis behavior in humans during discrimination learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 21, 475–483.
LEVINE, M. (1975). A cognitive theory of learning. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
LYNCH, D. C., & CUVO, A. J. (1995). Stimulus equivalence instruction of fraction- decimal relations. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 28, 115–126.
MACKAY, H. A. (1991). Conditional stimulus control. In I. Iversen & K. Lattal (Eds.), Experimental analysis of behavior (Part 1, pp. 301–350). Elsevier Science Publishers BV.
MACKINTOSH, N. J. (1974). The psychology of animal learning. London: Academic Press.
MCILVANE, W. J., & DUBE, W. V. (1992). Stimulus control shaping and stimulus control topographies. Behavior Analyst, 15, 89–94.
MCILVANE, W. J., DUBE, W. B., KLEDARAS, J. B., & IENNACO, F. M. (1990). Teaching relational discrimination to individuals with mental retardation: Some problems and possible solutions. American Journal of Mental Retardation, 95, 283–296.
MCILVANE, W. J., KLEDARAS, J. B., KILLORY-ANDERSEN, R., & SHEIBER, F. (1989). Teaching with non criterion-related prompts: A possible subject variable. The Psychological Record, 39, 131–142.
MCILVANE, W. J., SERNA, R. W., DUBE, W. V., & STROMER, R. (2000). Stimulus control topography and stimulus equivalence: Reconciling test outcomes with theory. In J. C. Leslie & D. Blackman (Eds.), Experimental and applied analysis of human behavior (pp. 85–110). Reno: Context Press.
MCILVANE, W. J., WITHSTANDLEY, J. K., & STODDARD, L. T. (1984). Positive and negative stimulus relations in severely retarded individuals’ conditional discrimination. Analysis and Intervention in Developmental Disabilities, 4, 235–251.
MILES, R. C. (1965). Discrimination-learning sets. In A. M. Schrier, H. F. Harlow, & F. Stollnitz (Eds.), Behavior of nonhuman primates (Vol. 1, pp. 249–281). New York: Academic Press.
MURRAY, E. A., & GAFFAN, D. (2006). Prospective memory in the formation of learning set by Rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 32, 87–90.
PEPPERBERG, I. M. (1981). Functional vocalizations by an African grey parrot (Psittacus erithacus), Z. Tierpsychol., 55, 139–160.
PEPPERBERG, I. M. (1986). Object permanence in the African grey parrot (Psittacus erithacus). Animal Learning and Behavior, 14(3), 322–330.
PEPPERBERG, I. M. (1988). Comprehension of “absence” by an African grey parrot: Learning with respect to questions of same/different. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 50, 553–564.
PEREZ-GONZALEZ, L. A., SPRADLIN, J. E., & SAUNDERS, K. J. (2006). Learning- set outcome in second-order conditional discriminations. The Psychological Record, 50, 429–442.
PEREZ-GONZALEZ, L. A., & WILLIAMS, G. (2002). Multicomponent procedure to teach conditional discriminations to children with autism. American Journal of Mental Retardation, 107, 293–301.
SANTI, A., & ROBERTS, W. A. (1985). Prospective representation: The effects of varied mapping of sample stimuli to comparison stimuli and different trial outcomes on pigeons’ working memory. Animal Learning and Behavior, 13, 103–108.
SAUNDERS, K., & SPRADLIN, J. E. (1989). Conditional discrimination in mentally retarded adults: The effect of training the component simple discriminations. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 52, 1–12.
SAUNDERS, K., & SPRADLIN, J. E. (1993). Conditional discrimination in mentally retarded subjects: Programming acquisition and learning set. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 60, 571–586.
SAUNDERS, R. R., CHANEY. L., & MARQUIS, J. G. (2005). Equivalence class establishment with two-, three-, and four-choice matching to sample by senior citizens. The Psychological Record, 55, 539–560.
SCHUSTERMAN, R. J., & GISINER, R. (1988). Artificial language comprehension in dolphins and sea lions: The essential cognitive skills. The Psychological Record, 38, 311–348.
SCHUSTERMAN, R., & KASTAK, D. (1993). A California sea lion (zalophus californianus) is capable of forming equivalence relations. The Psychological Record, 43, 823–840.
SIDMAN, M. (1978). Remarks. Behaviorism, 6, 265–268.
SIDMAN, M. (1980). A note on the measurement of conditional discriminations. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 33, 285–290.
SIDMAN, M. (1992). Adventitious control by the location of comparison stimuli in conditional discriminations. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 58, 173–182.
SIDMAN, M. (1994). Equivalence relations and behavior: A research story. Boston, MA: Authors Cooperative.
SLOTNICK, B., & HODOS, W. (2000). Can rats acquire an olfactory learning set? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 26, 399–415.
SPRADLIN, J. E., COTTER, V. W., & BAXLEY, N. (1973). Establishing a conditional discrimination without training: A study of transfer with retarded adolescents. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 77, 556–566.
STROMER, R., & OSBORNE, J. G. (1982). Control of adolescents’ arbitrary matching-to-sample by positive and negative stimulus relations. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 37, 329–348.
STROMER, R., & STROMER, J. B. (1990). The formation of arbitrary stimulus classes in matching to complex samples. The Psychological Record, 40, 51–66.
TOMANARI, G. Y., SIDMAN, M., RUBIO, A. R., & DUBE, W. V. (2006). Equivalence classes with requirements for short latencies. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 85, 349–369.
WARREN, J. M. (1965). Primate learning in comparative perspective. In A. M. Schrier, H. F. Harlow, & F. Stollnitz (Eds.), Behavior of nonhuman primates, (Vol. 1, pp. 51–95). New York: Academic Press.
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.
WRIGHT, A. A., SANTIAGO, H. C., & SANDS, S. F. (1984). Monkey memory: Same/different concept learning, serial probe acquisition, and probe delay effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 10, 513–529.
WRIGHT, A. A., SANTIAGO, H. C., URCIOLI, P. J., & SANDS, S. F. (1983). Monkey and pigeon acquisition of same/different concept using pictorial stimuli. In M. Commons, R. J. Herrnstein, & A. R. Wagner (Eds.), Quantitative analyses of behavior: Discrimination processes (Vol. IV, pp. 295–317). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This research was conducted with support from Contract DASW01-96-K-0009 from the U.S. Army Research Institute, and from PSC-CUNY Research Awards 68547, 69567, and 61617. We thank Xiqiang Zhu for his assistance in the development of the software used to conduct the experiment and analyze the data reported herein.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Fields, L., Garruto, M. & Watanabe, M. Varieties of Stimulus Control in Matching-to-Sample: A Kernel Analysis. Psychol Rec 60, 3–26 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03395691
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03395691