Effects of response-produced stimuli upon conditional discrimination performance.

Researchers taught pigeons a matching game. The birds had to peck the picture that looked like the sample.

The sample could be a plain light, the feeling of finishing five pecks, or both together. The team then tested if the birds still matched when brand-new pictures appeared.

Pigeons scored best when the sample mixed a light with the feeling of finishing pecks. They scored worst when the sample was only the feeling of finishing pecks.

Practicing with the finish-five-pecks cue first helped the birds later match brand-new pictures.

Delini-Stula (1970) showed that simply moving the body to look at a sample can itself become a cue. Lydersen et al. (1974) added the idea that finishing a small fixed ratio can also serve as a cue, and that blending cues beats using one alone.

Kohlenberg et al. (1976) took the next step. They proved that making the response requirement different for each sample speeds up learning, backing the 1974 hint that prior ratio practice helps.

Johnson et al. (1994) stretched the idea to children with intellectual disabilities. Having the kids repeat the sample names aloud let them succeed where they had failed before. The bird finding jumped species and became a practical teaching tip.

When you set up conditional-discrimination tasks, add an overt learner action to the sample. Have the student clap once for red, twice for blue, or say the word aloud. The blend of seeing and doing creates stronger stimulus control than seeing alone, and the motor cue can later be faded. Try it in matching, intraverbal training, or listener responding next session.