Tutorial Stimulus Control: Part II James A
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The Behavior Analyst 1995, 18, 253-269 No. 2 (Fall) Tutorial Stimulus Control: Part II James A. Dinsmoor Indiana University The second part of my tutorial stresses the systematic importance of two parameters of discrimi- nation training: (a) the magnitude of the physical difference between the positive and the negative stimulus (disparity) and (b) the magnitude of the difference between the positive stimulus, in par- ticular, and the background stimulation (salience). It then examines the role these variables play in such complex phenomena as blocking and overshadowing, progressive discrimination training, and the transfer of control by fading. It concludes by considering concept formation and imitation, which are important forms of application, and recent work on equivalence relations. Key words: stimulus control, disparity, salience, blocking, overshadowing, transfer, fading, con- cept formation, imitation, equivalence relations The first part of this tutorial dealt a positive correlation between the S + with the basic principles that account and the primary reinforcer that selects for the acquisition of stimulus control the one relevant stimulus out of the under what is conventionally known as many that impinge upon the organism discrimination training. Among the sa- and transforms it into a conditioned re- lient points that were raised were sug- inforcer of observing behavior. Note gestions that (a) control by antecedent also that if the subject is exposed ex- stimuli is just as important in operant clusively to S + training or to a single as it is in respondent behavior; (b) Pav- period of S + training followed by a lov's conditional stimulus is a discrim- single period of S - training rather than inative stimulus; (c) stimulus general- to a continued alternation, control is ization is not a behavioral process in- less adequate (Honig, Thomas, & Gutt- dependent of and antagonistic to dis- man, 1959; Yarczower & Switalski, crimination but is simply another way 1969). Similarly, in a compound dis- of describing control by antecedent crimination like that studied by Blough stimuli; and (d) the increases in control (1969), if one dimension is left contin- that occur during discrimination train- uously at its positive value for a num- ing can be attributed to more frequent ber of sessions, control by that dimen- and more prolonged observation of the sion is reduced and control by the other relevant stimuli accompanied, it is pre- dimension enhanced; when the proce- sumed, by concomitant changes in at- dure returns to the previous alternation tention. between positive and negative stimuli, Note that in conventional discrimi- the discriminative performance returns nation training, the subject is exposed to its normal level. to repeated alternations between the The second part of my tutorial will positive stimulus (S+), which is ac- necessarily be less tightly integrated. companied by a schedule of reinforce- Taking off from the foundation laid in ment, and an alternative stimulus (S-), Part I, it extends the treatment of stim- which is not accompanied by rein- ulus control to a discussion of two of forcement. This alternation establishes its most important parameters and to several more complex patterns that Address correspondence to James A. Dins- seem to hold special significance for moor, Department of Psychology, Indiana Uni- basic theorizing and practical applica- versity, Bloomington, Indiana 47405. tion. 253 254 JAMES A. DINSMOOR STIMULUS PARAMETERS er intensity was set at 60 dB, with the higher intensity determined by the There are a number of variables that magnitude of the difference between influence the rate at which the subject the two; for the other half, the higher learns to discriminate between stimuli intensity was set at 100 dB, with the and the level of performance that will lower intensity determined by the mag- ultimately be attained. However, some nitude of the difference. (Because there of these, like the physical quality of the was only one 60-100 group and one stimulus (e.g., wavelength of light, en- 100-60 group, there were 14 rather ergy of sound), the topography of the than 16 groups in all, plus a special response, and individual and species control group.) differences among different subjects, It seems obvious that very small do not readily lend themselves to the physical differences between the posi- formulation of general laws of behav- tive stimulus (SD or S+) and the neg- ior. Of greater interest from a system- ative stimulus (S^ or S-) must be dif- atic point of view are those parameters ficult to discriminate. Up to some limit, that enter into a variety of behavioral at least, larger differences should pro- paradigms. There are two parameters, mote faster acquisition and a larger ul- in particular, that will appear and reap- timate difference between the two per- pear in subsequent accounts of topics formances. This expectation is borne like overshadowing, blocking, the out by a series of plots tracing the easy-to-hard effect, fading, and con- course of the discrimination index cept formation. These are (a) the mag- (multiplied by 10) as a function of the nitude of the difference in physical hours of training. In all four panels of units between the positive and the neg- Figure 1, the discrimination is slowest ative stimulus, sometimes subsumed to develop and attains the lowest final by the phrase stimulus disparity, and level in groups for which the stimuli (b) the magnitude of the difference be- differ by only 10 dB; groups for which tween the discriminative stimuli and the difference is 20 dB do somewhat the background stimulation, subsumed better; groups for which the difference as stimulus salience. is 30 or 40 dB differ less during ac- quisition and tend to converge, but at Stimulus Disparity still higher levels of performance. With Clearcut evidence for the role played pigeons as subjects, Hanson (1959) by the disparity between the two stim- found a similar relation between the uli may be found in a series of early magnitude of the difference in wave- studies, using rats as subjects, con- length and the time required for the de- ducted by Rosemary Pierrel and her as- velopment of a discrimination. Again sociates at Brown University. Bar the slope of the function was steep at pressing was reinforced on a variable- small values but decreased as larger interval schedule in the presence of the values were approached. positive stimulus but not in the pres- ence of the negative stimulus. In Pier- Stimulus Salience rel, Sherman, Blue, and Hegge (1970), for example, the discriminative stimuli Further examples of the effects of were pulsed tones of 4 kHz that dif- stimulus disparity would not be hard to fered in intensity. The difference be- find, but the magnitude of the differ- tween the positive and the negative ence between the discriminative stim- stimulus was set at 10, 20, 30, or 40 uli and their background stimulation dB, with the higher intensity serving as (salience) poses more of a problem. the positive stimulus for half the This is a dimension that does not come groups and as the negative stimulus for up for consideration within the older the other half. Also, for half the ani- response-strengthening-and-weakening mals, independently assigned, the low- theories of discrimination learning. STIMULUS CONTROL 255 A B 900 100 [V~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ 700/ :! ~~60- 707!-6 X600 60 -80 ---- 80-m60-- F Pct60 100 - 60 z o 500 P o900 V , ~ ~ OR IN LCSO SD ofDBA 100- 90- a90 - 00- 600 loo~0- 80-- 80 - 100--- spcfew ndcbl.(erdcdfo ire ta. 90 cprgh Socet fo th xermna 100 - 70-''-70 - tO .....- 100-~~~~~~~~606- 100- 500 32 96 160 224 32 96 160 224 HOURS IN BLOCKS OF 8 Figure 1. Percentage of responding in SD (S+), multiplied by 10, as a function of hours of training. Each point represents the mean of 4 rats during an 8-hr session. The stimuli for each group are specified in decibels. (Reproduced from Pierrel et al., 1970; copyright Society for the Experimental Analysis of Behavior.) However, when investigators are guid- stimulus disparity on the relative rates ed by an interest in the role of observ- of pecking two observing keys (Dins- ing or attention, it becomes a more moor, Sears, & Dout, 1976). In our first likely candidate. In my laboratory, we experiment, the birds pecked a key that became aware of the importance of sa- produced large increases or decreases lience while studying the effects of in illumination as discriminative stim- 256 JAMES A. DINSMOOR uli at higher rates than they pecked a by depressing a low-lying "perch," key that produced smaller increases or similar to the conventional cross-bar decreases in illumination. In our sec- for rats, the pigeon produced stimuli ond experiment, however, we varied that were correlated with the compo- the magnitude of change for the posi- nent schedules. During periods when tive and the negative stimuli indepen- the variable-interval schedule was in dently. We discovered that the positive effect, the stimulus was, for two dif- relation between magnitude of change ferent groups, a clockwise tilt of 150 or and rate of pecking stemmed entirely a clockwise tilt of 300 (S+); during pe- from the positive stimulus: For the riods when the grain was being with- negative stimulus, the function was held, it was a counterclockwise tilt of negative in slope. That is, larger the same magnitude (S-). For half of changes in stimulation reduced the the subjects, then, the total difference rate. On returning to the experimental between the two tilts was 30°, and for literature, we were led to the conclu- the other half, it was 600. These differ- sion that in most previous examina- ences represented small and large dis- tions of stimulus difference, the mag- parities, respectively, between the two nitude of the difference between the stimuli.