|
| Matching to Sample 1 |
| Tuesday, June 1, 2004 |
| 11:00 AM–11:50 AM |
| Beacon D |
| Area: EAB |
| Chair: Erik Arntzen (Akershus University College) |
| |
| Re-conceptualising the Contingencies of Reinforcement in Matching-to-Sample Tasks |
| Domain: Applied Research |
| MAX JONES (University of Auckland) |
| |
| Abstract: This paper describes, discusses, and extends the conceptual model of matching-to-sample (MTS) performance that was proposed by Jones (2003). Unlike the models proposed by Davison and Tustin (1978), Alsop (1991), Davison (1991), and Davison and Nevin (1999), this new approach involves a distinction between signal-detection-type tasks where two topographically different responses are required to two samples, and MTS tasks where discriminations between samples and discriminations between comparisons are required. I argue that the former tasks involve three-term contingencies of reinforcement whereas the latter involve four-term contingencies, that reinforcement frequency operates differently in the two tasks, and that there is converging evidence for these conceptualizations. The implications of this approach for quantitative models of stimulus discriminability and response bias in MTS and delayed MTS tasks will also be discussed. |
| |
| "Rehearsal" in Delayed Matching to Sample and Stimulus Equivalence |
| Domain: Applied Research |
| ERIK ARNTZEN (Akershus University College) |
| |
| Abstract: In an earlier study which included a series of four experiments with delayed matching to sample and equivalence showed that the participants even after long delays responded in accord with equivalence, while participants that were engaged in distracting tasks during the retention intervals did not have success on equivalence tests. It could be that engaging in distracting tasks could prevent such mediating behavior or rehearsal (Arntzen, submitted). Therefore, an important experimental manipulation was to give the participants a possibility to engage in overt rehearsal during the retention intervals. The purpose of the present experiment was first to replicate the findings with distracting tasks, and second to control rehearsal of stimuli, if any, by having the participants to use a memorandum during the retention intervals. The experiment showed that coding responses during the retention interval were flexible rather than fixed. |
| |
|
| |