Control by sample location in pigeons' matching to sample
Open accessAbstract
Three experiments assessed the impact of sample location in pigeons' matching to sample. Experiments 1 and 2 demonstrated that after line or hue identity matching was acquired to high levels of accuracy with center‐key samples, varying sample location across the three keys disrupted performances. The drop in accuracy occurred following both zero‐delay and simultaneous training and was mostly confined to trials in which the sample appeared on a side key. Experiment 3 attempted to diminish control by location by training birds to match samples that could appear in any location prior to center‐key sample training and moving‐sample testing with another set of stimuli. In testing, all birds performed accurately on center‐sample trials and on side‐key sample trials in which the matching choice appeared on the center key. Accuracy was below chance, however, on side‐key sample trials in which the matching choice appeared on the other side key. One implication of the persistent control by sample location in the three‐key paradigm is that it precludes the possibility of symmetry because symmetry tests require a change in the locations at which samples and comparisons appear.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Later research found that formal properties of stimuli, such as location, can exert control over responding to the point of inhibiting symbolic learning.
“Later, researchers found that formal properties of the stimuli, such as its location, may exert control over responding to the point of inhibiting symbolic learning (Iversen et al., 1986;Lionello & Urcuioli, 1998).”
From A Process-Based Analysis of Cognitive Defusion in Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (2023) · cites this paper as Lionello & Urcuioli, 1998
The Discussion reports that moving samples to new locations disrupted pigeons’ matching performance, and the General Discussion says location strongly controlled responding. The paper argues that this location dependence may prevent standard tests from revealing symmetry; it does not show that symbolic learning itself was inhibited. The passages provided do not give page numbers. (LLM, conf=0.83)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 16
- Carter, D. E., & Werner, T. S. (1978). Complex learning and information processing by pigeons: A critical analysis. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 29, 565-601.
- D'Amato, M. R., Salmon, D. P., Loukas, E., & Tomie, A. (1985). Symmetry and transitivity of conditional re- lations in monkeys (Cebus apella) and pigeons (Colum- ba livia). Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 44, 35-47.
- Hogan, D. E., & Zentall, T. R. (1977). Backward associ- ations in the pigeon. American Journal of Psychology, 90, 3-15.
- Iversen, I. H. (1997). Matching-to-sample performance in rats: A case of mistaken identity? Journal of the Ex- perimental Analysis of Behavior, 68, 27-46.
- Iversen, I. H., Sidman, M., & Carrigan, P. (1986). Stim- ulus definition in conditional discriminations. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 45, 297-304.
- Kamil, A. C., & Sacks, R. A. (1972). Three-configuration matching-to-sample in the pigeon. Journal of the Exper- imental Analysis of Behavior, 17, 483-488.
- Lipkens, R., Kop, P. F. M., & Matthijs, W. (1988). A test of symmetry and transitivity in the conditional dis- crimination performance of pigeons. Journal of the Ex- perimental Analysis of Behavior, 49, 395-409.
- Oden, D. L., Thompson, R. K., & Premack, D. (1988). Spontaneous transfer of matching by infant chimpan- zees. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 14, 140-145.
- Rodger, R. S. (1975a). The number of non-zero, post hoc contrasts from ANOVA and error rate. I. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 28, 71- 78.
- Rodger, R. S. (1975b). Setting rejection rate for con- trasts selected post hoc when some nulls are false. Brit- ish Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 28, 214-232.
- Sidman, M., Rauzin, R., Lazar, R., Cunningham, S., Tail- by, W., & Carrigan, P. (1982). A search for symmetry in the conditional discriminations of rhesus monkeys, baboons, and children. Journal of the Experimental Anal- ysis of Behavior, 37, 23-44.
- Thomas, D. R. (1985). Contextual stimulus control of operant responding in pigeons. In P. D. Balsam & A. Tomie (Eds.), Context and learning (pp. 295-321).
- Urcuioli, P. J., & DeMarse, T. B. (1997). Further tests of response-outcome associations in differential-out- come matching-to-sample. Journal of Experimental Psy- chology: Animal Behavior Processes, 23, 171-182.
- Urcuioli, P. J., Zentall, T., & DeMarse, T. (1995). Trans- fer to derived sample-comparison relations by pigeons following many-to-one versus one-to-many matching with identical training relations. Quarterly Journal of Ex- perimental Psychology, 48B, 158-178.
- Wright, A. A. (1992). The study of animal cognitive pro- cesses. In W. K. Honig & J. G. Fetterman (Eds.) Cog- nitive aspects of stimulus control (pp. 225-242). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
- Wright, A. A., & Sands, S. F. (1981). A model of detec- tion and decision processes during matching to sam- ple by pigeons: Performance with 88 different wave- lengths in delayed and simultaneous matching tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Pro- cesses, 7, 191-216.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A Process-Based Analysis of Cognitive Defusion in Acceptance and Commitment Therapy
Assaz, D. A., Tyndall, I., Oshiro, C. K. B., & Roche, B. (2023) · Behavior Therapy · doi:10.1016/j.beth.2022.06.003 · Cited by 43 · see citing works
- Authors
- Lionello, K. M., & Urcuioli, P. J.
- Affiliations
- Purdue University West Lafayette (US)
- Venue
- Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1998-11
- Volume
- 70
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 235-251
- ISSN
- 0022-5002 (ISSN-L)
- 1938-3711
- PMC
- PMC1284682
- OpenAlex
- W2036607133
- Cited by
- 87
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 6 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2020: 3 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 7
- FWCI
- 2.58
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health (5r01mh056487-04)
- National Institute of Mental Health (MH56487)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Behavioral and Psychological Studies
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
- Keywords
- matching-to-sample, sampling sites, pigeons, symmetry, stimulus control, simultaneous training
- MeSH terms
- Animals, Behavior, Animal, Conditioning, Psychological, Feeding Behavior, Columbidae
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
