Acquisition and maintenance of autoshaped key pecking as a function of food stimulus and key stimulus similarity.
Make the response cue look like the reinforcer and both speed and stamina jump.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Pigeons pecked a lit key to get grain. The key color matched the grain hopper color more or less.
The team watched how fast each bird learned the first peck and how many pecks kept coming later.
What they found
When key and grain hopper looked alike, birds learned to peck sooner.
They also pecked more often, even when food still came no matter what.
How this fits with other research
Locurto et al. (1976) and Atnip (1977) showed that omission training slows later autoshaping. Greer (1982) adds a new lever: stimulus similarity can speed it back up.
Zentall et al. (1975) found that extra beeps and lights keep bar pressing high when food is free. Greer (1982) shows the food dish itself can act like that extra cue.
Together the four papers tell one story: anything that tightens the link between response, stimulus, and food boosts acquisition and keeps the response alive.
Why it matters
Match your teaching materials to the reinforcer. If the token, picture, or button looks like the snack, toy, or video that follows, clients acquire the response faster and stick with it longer. Try swapping in a green card that matches the green apples you hand out, or a blue button that matches the cup of juice. The closer the visual match, the quicker the learner figures it out.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Pick one target response and change the card, button, or picture to share a color with the delivered snack.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
The results of a number of recent studies suggest that acquisitions of autoshaped key pecking in pigeons is affected by the similarity of the grain-hopper stimulus and response-key stimulus. In Experiment 1 this hypothesis was tested by training independent groups of pigeons to key peck under six different hopper-stimulus and key-stimulus similarity conditions, and three procedures containing either immediate reinforcement, variable delay of reinforcement, or omission of reinforcement for key pecking. Number of trials to acquisition was found to be related to the similarity variable. Maintained responding was affected by the response-reinforcer contingency. This effect was found both within and between subjects. Under two of the contingencies (automaintenance and omission), maintained responding continued to be affected by the similarity of the hopper stimulus and key stimulus. In Experiment 2 pigeons were given omission training with a hopper light on or off. Both acquisition and maintenance of key pecking were facilitated by the presence of the hopper light. The present findings suggest that much of the responding reported in various automatic shaping and training procedures may reflect the effects of key stimulus/food stimulus similarity.
Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 1982 · doi:10.1901/jeab.1982.38-281