SAMPLE STIMULUS CONTROL SHAPING AND RESTRICTED STIMULUS CONTROL IN CAPUCHIN MONKEYS: A METHODOLOGICAL NOTE

This paper reports use of sample stimulus control shaping procedures to teach arbitrary matching‐to‐sample to 2 capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella). The procedures started with identity matching‐to‐sample. During shaping, stimulus features of the sample were altered gradually, rendering samples and comp...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior 2011-05, Vol.95 (3), p.387-398
Main Authors: Brino, Ana Leda F., Barros, Romariz S., Galvão, Olavo F., Garotti, M., da Cruz, Ilara R. N., Santos, José R., Dube, William V., McIlvane, William J.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Animals
Cebus - psychology
Cebus apella
Cognitive Ability
Comparative Analysis
Computation
Conditioning (Psychology)
Discrimination Learning
Emotional Response
Error Patterns
Followup Studies
Intellectual Disability
Laboratories
Male
matching-to-sample
Monkeys & apes
Neuropsychological Tests
Pattern Recognition, Visual
Psychomotor Performance
Reinforcement Schedule
Research Methodology
restricted stimulus control
Sample Size
Severe Intellectual Disability
Social Environment
Stimuli
stimulus control shaping
Task Analysis
Teaching Methods
touching
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:This paper reports use of sample stimulus control shaping procedures to teach arbitrary matching‐to‐sample to 2 capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella). The procedures started with identity matching‐to‐sample. During shaping, stimulus features of the sample were altered gradually, rendering samples and comparisons increasingly physically dissimilar. The objective was to transform identity matching into arbitrary matching (i.e., matching not based on common physical features of the sample and comparison stimuli). Experiment 1 used a two‐comparison procedure. The shaping procedure was ultimately effective, but occasional high error rates at certain program steps inspired a follow‐up study. Experiment 2 used the same basic approach, but with a three‐comparison matching task. During shaping, the monkey performed accurately until the final steps of the program. Subsequent experimentation tested the hypothesis that the decrease in accuracy was due to restricted stimulus control by sample stimulus features that had not yet been changed in the shaping program. Results were consistent with this hypothesis, thus suggesting a new approach that may transform the sample stimulus control shaping procedure from a sometimes useful laboratory tool to a more general approach to teaching the first instance of arbitrary matching performances to participants who show protracted difficulties in learning such performances.
ISSN:0022-5002
1938-3711
DOI:10.1901/jeab.2011.95-387