Effects of brief post-sample cues signaling presence or absence of reinforcers in delayed matching-to-sample

• Published in: Behavioural processes 2022-08, Vol.200, p.104664-104664, Article 104664
• Main Authors: Gomes-Ng, Stephanie, Baharrizki, Darren, Cowie, Sarah, Elliffe, Douglas, Bai, John Y.H.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Delayed matching to sample; Differential reinforcement; Remembering; Signaled probability effect
• ISSN: 0376-6357; 1872-8308
• DOI: 10.1016/j.beproc.2022.104664

When short-term memory is assessed in the delayed matching-to-sample (DMTS) procedure, performance is better when cues signal larger reinforcer magnitudes or higher reinforcer probabilities for correct responding. Previous studies demonstrating signaled-magnitude or signaled-probability effects presented cues for a prolonged period during the sample stimulus and/or retention interval. The present study asked whether a signaled-probability effect would occur with brief post-sample cues that signaled the presence or absence of reinforcement. Five pigeons responded in a DMTS task in which sample stimuli were sometimes followed by a 0.5-s cue signaling that reinforcers would either be available or not available in the current trial, and the retention interval varied from 0.5 s to 20 s. A reliable signaled-probability effect was found when reinforcers were arranged independently and for all correct responses, whereas a smaller, less systematic effect was found when reinforcers were arranged dependently and probabilistically. These findings highlight the importance of reinforcement contingencies and contingency discriminability in remembering, and add to the evidence showing that cues signaling differential reinforcement in DMTS may affect processes during the retention interval and comparison phase, rather than attention to the sample stimulus. •We investigated how brief cues signaling the presence or absence of reinforcers affect memory performance.•Cues were presented for 0.5 s after the sample in a delayed matching-to-sample procedure.•In reinforced trials, reinforcers were arranged with p = .5 (Expt 1) or for all correct responses (Expt 2).•Accuracy was lower when cues signaled reinforcer absence in Expt 2. This effect was smaller and less systematic in Expt 1.•These findings highlight the role of discriminated reinforcement contingencies in remembering.