Intertrial sources of stimulus control and delayed matching-to-sample performance in humans.

Dean C Williams, Mark D Johnston, Kathryn J Saunders
Author Information
  1. Dean C Williams: Parsons Research Center, University of Kansas, Parsons 67357, USA. Deanwms@ku.edu

Abstract

Two experiments compared delayed matching-to-sample (DMTS) accuracy under 2 procedures in adults with mental retardation. In the trial-unique procedure, every trial in a session contained different stimuli. Thus, comparison stimuli that were correct on one trial were never incorrect on other trials in that session (or vice versa). In the 2-sample DMTS procedure, the same 2 comparison stimuli were presented on each trial, and their function changed quasi-randomly across trials conditional upon the sample stimulus. Across 2 experiments, 7 of 8 subjects showed the highest overall accuracy under the trial-unique procedure, and no subject showed consistently higher accuracy under the 2-sample procedure. Negative, exponential decay functions fit to logit p values showed that this difference was due largely to the steeper delay-mediated decline in sample control for the 2-sample procedure. Stimulus-control analyses indicated that, under the 2-sample procedure, the selection of the comparison stimulus on Trial N was often controlled by the comparison stimulus selection on Trial N-1 rather than the Trial-N sample stimulus. This source of competing stimulus control is not present in trial-unique procedures. Experiment 2 manipulated intertrial interval duration. There was a small but consistent increase in accuracy as a function of intertrial interval duration under the 2-sample procedure, but not under the trial-unique procedure.

References

  1. J Exp Anal Behav. 1989 Nov;52(3):409-26 [PMID: 16812603]
  2. J Exp Anal Behav. 1993 Nov;60(3):571-85 [PMID: 8283149]
  3. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 2004 Apr;30(2):83-95 [PMID: 15078118]
  4. J Exp Anal Behav. 1985 Jul;44(1):15-34 [PMID: 16812424]
  5. J Exp Anal Behav. 1973 Jan;19(1):181-6 [PMID: 16811648]
  6. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 1975 Oct;1(4):326-34 [PMID: 811754]
  7. J Exp Anal Behav. 1959 Apr;2:151-60 [PMID: 13801643]
  8. Am J Ment Retard. 1998 Sep;103(2):186-92 [PMID: 9779285]
  9. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 1982 Oct;8(4):342-53 [PMID: 7175446]
  10. Science. 1975 Feb 21;187(4177):662-4 [PMID: 1114318]
  11. Behav Neurosci. 1994 Aug;108(4):691-702 [PMID: 7986363]
  12. Schizophr Res. 2003 Feb 1;59(2-3):261-8 [PMID: 12414083]
  13. J Exp Anal Behav. 1982 Jan;37(1):23-44 [PMID: 7057127]
  14. Adv Child Dev Behav. 1974;9(0):1-45 [PMID: 4611154]
  15. Am J Ment Defic. 1975 May;79(6):680-9 [PMID: 1146860]
  16. Behav Neurosci. 1990 Oct;104(5):655-65 [PMID: 2244974]
  17. Neuroscience. 1980;5(11):1825-31 [PMID: 7432624]
  18. Psychon Bull Rev. 2002 Sep;9(3):426-37 [PMID: 12412885]

Grants

  1. P01 HD018955/NICHD NIH HHS
  2. P30HD02528/NICHD NIH HHS
  3. R01HD044731/NICHD NIH HHS

MeSH Term

Adult
Attention
Conflict, Psychological
Discrimination Learning
Female
Humans
Intellectual Disability
Male
Memory, Short-Term
Orientation
Pattern Recognition, Visual
Psychomotor Performance
Reinforcement Schedule
Time Perception

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0procedurestimulus2-sampleaccuracy2trial-uniquecomparisontrialstimulisampleshowedcontrolexperimentsdelayedmatching-to-sampleDMTSproceduressessiontrialsfunctionselectionTrialintertrialintervaldurationTwocomparedadultsmentalretardationeverycontaineddifferentThuscorrectoneneverincorrectviceversapresentedchangedquasi-randomlyacrossconditionaluponAcross78subjectshighestoverallsubjectconsistentlyhigherNegativeexponentialdecayfunctionsfitlogitpvaluesdifferenceduelargelysteeperdelay-mediateddeclineStimulus-controlanalysesindicatedNoftencontrolledN-1ratherTrial-NsourcecompetingpresentExperimentmanipulatedsmallconsistentincreaseIntertrialsourcesperformancehumans

Similar Articles

Cited By