Urcuioli Peter J
Department of Psychological Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana 47907-2081, USA.
Learn Behav. 2007 Nov;35(4):252-61. doi: 10.3758/bf03206431.
Pigeons learned symbolic matching with samples appearing equally often on left and right keys. For a location-relevant group, the reinforced comparison choice for each sample reversed across sample locations; for a location-irrelevant group, the reinforced choices were the same. Consistent with the hypothesis that samples at different locations are functionally different for pigeons, Experiment 1 showed that matching acquisition was comparable in these two groups. Nevertheless, the location-irrelevant group eventually ignored sample location, given that their performances subsequently transferred to a novel (center-key) sample location. This transfer was not simply due to sample familiarity at different training locations; rather, it required that left- and right-key samples occasion the same reinforced choices in training. Acquired equivalence between those samples was then assessed in Experiment 2. The location-irrelevant group showed the predicted equivalence effects, but the location-relevant group did not--in fact, its results were the opposite of those predicted by equivalence. Their results indicate that the functional comparison stimuli are also defined in terms of their locations.
鸽子学会了在左右键上出现频率相同的样本的符号匹配。对于一个与位置相关的组,每个样本的强化比较选择在样本位置之间反转;对于一个与位置无关的组,强化选择是相同的。与不同位置的样本对鸽子具有不同功能的假设一致,实验1表明这两组的匹配习得情况相当。然而,与位置无关的组最终忽略了样本位置,因为它们的表现随后转移到了一个新的(中心键)样本位置。这种转移不仅仅是由于在不同训练位置对样本的熟悉程度;相反,它要求左右键样本在训练中引发相同的强化选择。然后在实验2中评估了这些样本之间获得的等效性。与位置无关的组显示出预期的等效效应,但与位置相关的组没有——事实上,其结果与等效性预测的结果相反。它们的结果表明,功能比较刺激也根据其位置来定义。