Author:
Chartier Thomas F.,Fagot Joël
Abstract
SummaryWhile humans exposed to a sequential stimulus pairing A-B are commonly assumed to form a bidirectional mental relation between A and B, evidence that non-human animals can do so is limited. Careful examination of the animal literature suggests possible improvements in the test procedures used to probe such effects, notably measuring transfer effects on the learning of B-A pairings, rather than direct recall of A upon cuing with B. We developed such an experimental design and tested 20 Guinea baboons (Papio papio). Two pairings of visual shapes were trained (A1-B1, A2-B2) and testing was conducted in a reversed order, either with conserved pairings (B1-A1, B2-A2) or broken ones (B1-A2, B2-A1). We found baboons’ immediate test performance to be above chance level for conserved pairings and below chance level for broken ones. Moreover, baboons needed less trials to learn conserved pairings compared to broken ones. These effects were apparent for both pairings on average, and separately for the best learned pairing. Baboons’ responding on B-A trials was thus influenced by their previous A-B training. Performance level at the onset of testing, however, suggests that baboons did not respond in full accordance with the hypothesis of bidirectionality. To account for these data, we suggest that two competing types of relations were concomitantly encoded: a directional relation between A and B, which retains the sequential order experienced, and a non-directional relation, which retains only the co-occurrence of events, not their temporal order.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Behavioral Neuroscience,Cognitive Neuroscience,Experimental and Cognitive Psychology
Reference49 articles.
1. Arntzen, E., & Haugland, S. (2012). Titration of limited hold to comparison in conditional discrimination training and stimulus equivalence testing. The Psychological Record, 62(2), 243–261. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03395800
2. Asch, S. E., & Ebenholtz, S. M. (1962). The principle of associative symmetry. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 106(2), 135–163. http://www.jstor.org/stable/985378
3. Bentall, R. P., Dickins, D. W., & Fox, S. R. (1993). Naming and equivalence: Response latencies for emergent relations. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 46(2), 187–214. https://doi.org/10.1080/14640749308401085
4. Campos, H. C., Urcuioli, P. J., & Swisher, M. (2014). Concurrent identity training is not necessary for associative symmetry in successive matching. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 101(1), 10–25. https://doi.org/10.1002/jeab.51
5. Chartier, T. F., & Fagot, J. (2022). Associative symmetry: a divide between humans and nonhumans? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 26(4), 286-289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2022.01.009
Cited by
5 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献