Acquisition of matching-to-sample performance in rats using visual stimuli on nose keys.
Rats can learn picture matching through nose pokes, giving BCBAs a clear animal model for refining stimulus-equivalence lessons.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Three lab rats learned to match pictures.
Each trial lit up a sample picture on a nose-key.
When the rat touched it, two choice pictures appeared.
Touching the picture that matched the sample earned food.
Sessions ran daily until accuracy stayed above 90 percent.
What they found
All three rats hit the 90 percent mark after about 50 sessions.
Early on they made lots of errors, then errors dropped in a clear pattern.
The rats first learned to touch any key, then slowly picked the matching one.
How this fits with other research
Galizio et al. (2018) later showed rats can also match smells, not just pictures.
They used a one-at-a-time, or successive, layout instead of side-by-side.
Both studies prove rats can do identity matching, just with different senses and layouts.
Eisenmajer et al. (1998) tweaked picture clarity with pigeons and found the same error patterns.
Together the papers show matching-to-sample works across species and senses.
Why it matters
You now know that rats can master identity matching with simple nose pokes.
This gives you a cheap, quick animal model for testing new teaching ideas before trying them with kids.
If a procedure speeds up learning in rats, it may also help your learners with autism.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Plot daily accuracy across sessions for one learner—look for the same staged error drop seen in the rats.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Steady and blinking white lights were projected on three nose keys arranged horizontally on one wall. The procedure was a conditional discrimination with a sample stimulus presented on the middle key and comparison stimuli on the side keys. Three rats acquired simultaneous "identity matching." Accuracy reached 80% in about 25 sessions and 90% or higher after about 50 sessions. Acquisition progressed through several stages of repeated errors, alteration between comparison keys from trial to trial, preference of specific keys or stimuli, and a gradual lengthening of strings of consecutive trials with correct responses. An analysis of the acquisition curves for individual trial configurations indicated that the matching-to-sample performance possibly consisted of separate discriminations.
Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 1993 · doi:10.1901/jeab.1993.59-471