Acquisition of delayed matching in the pigeon.
Teach the skill without delay first, then add the delay second.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The team worked with pigeons in a small lab box.
Each bird first saw three keys light up.
One key showed the sample color.
The other two keys showed choice colors.
When the bird pecked the matching color, it got grain.
At first, sample and choices stayed on together.
After the bird scored 90 % correct, delays crept in.
The sample vanished, then a gap of 1, 2, 3, or 4 s passed.
Only then did the choices appear.
The question: could the bird still pick the right color after the wait?
What they found
Without the warm-up, the birds failed.
They pecked at random when any delay showed up.
But after mastering the no-delay version, every bird learned the 4-second wait.
Scores stayed above 80 % even at the longest gap.
The lesson: clear: nail the easy version first, then stretch the delay.
How this fits with other research
Brown et al. (1994) took the same birds and same matching game, but kept delay at zero.
They showed that once birds master matching, they can form brand-new links without extra training.
THOMAS et al. (1963) laid the groundwork; Brown et al. (1994) proved the payoff goes beyond simple memory.
Fields et al. (1991) moved the task to preschool kids.
They found that children, like pigeons, learn matching faster when they first get error-free practice.
The species differ, but the teaching order stays the same.
Paul (1983) looked at pigeons again, but swapped delay for ratio size.
Both studies show that one variable at a time keeps stimulus control clean.
Why it matters
When you teach delayed matching to a learner with autism, run zero-delay trials until the score is rock-solid.
Only then add one-second gaps.
This tiny shift saves hours of re-teaching later.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Start every new matching program with 0 s delay; advance by 1 s only after two sessions at 90 % correct.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Pigeons were exposed to three successive matching-to-sample procedures. On a given trial, the sample (red, green or blue light) appeared on a center key; observing responses to this key produced the comparison stimuli on two side keys. Seven different experimental conditions could govern the temporal relations between the sample and comparison stimuli. In the "simultaneous" condition, the center key response was followed immediately by illumination of the side key comparison stimuli, with the center key remaining on. In "zero delay" the center key response simultaneously turned the side keys on and the center key off, while in the "variable delay" conditions, intervals of 1, 2, 4, 10, and 24 sec were interposed between the offset of the sample and the appearance of the comparison stimuli on the side keys. In all conditions, a response to the side key of matching hue produced reinforcement, while a response to the non-matching side key was followed by a blackout. In procedure I all seven experimental conditions were presented in randomly permutated order. After nine sessions of exposure (at 191 trials per session, for a total of 1719 trials) the birds gave no evidence of acquisition in any of the conditions. They were therefore transferred to Procedure II, which required them to match only in the "simultaneous" condition, with both the sample and comparison stimuli present at the same time. With the exception of one bird, all subjects acquired this performance to near 100% levels. Next, in Procedure III, they were once more exposed to presentation of all seven experimental conditions in random order. In contrast to Procedure I, they now acquired the delay performance, and were able to match effectively at delays of about 4 sec.
Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 1963 · doi:10.1901/jeab.1963.6-101