Inhibitory stimulus control following errorless discrimination learning.
Errorless training still lets the S- become a strong stop signal, so probe for and use that inhibitory control.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The team worked with pigeons in a lab. They used errorless discrimination training. Birds learned to peck when one light was on and not peck when another light was on.
They added extra steps. Differential autoshaping and a multiple schedule helped the birds learn with almost zero mistakes.
What they found
Even though training was errorless, the birds still treated the negative light as a stop signal. The negative stimulus gained inhibitory control.
This result went against the old claim that errorless training blocks inhibition.
How this fits with other research
MOORHEARSKELLEHER et al. (1964) first showed errorless brightness-to-form transfer in preschoolers. Harrison et al. (1975) copied the idea with pigeons and added the new twist: inhibition can still grow.
Tiger et al. (2017) later took the same inhibitory control idea and used it with two children with autism. The kids learned to stop stereotypy when an S- card appeared.
Blanchard et al. (1979) looked like they disagreed. They found no inhibition from weak S- elements. The key difference is procedure: they used simple successive discrimination, not full errorless fading. When fading is done right, inhibition does appear.
Why it matters
Do not assume an errorless procedure removes the power of the S-. The stop cue can still gain inhibitory strength and later help you extinguish or transfer behavior.
Check your own errorless programs. Probe for inhibition by briefly presenting the S- alone and watching response rate drop. If inhibition is there, you now have an extra tool for stimulus control.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →After errorless teaching, test the S- alone for 30 s; if responding drops, you have bonus inhibitory control to help future fading.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Three generalization procedures were used to investigate inhibitory stimulus control following discrimination learning with few errors. Three groups of pigeons acquired a discrimination between a green stimulus (the positive stimulus) and a vertical or horizontal line (the negative stimulus) through differential autoshaping followed by multiple schedule presentation of the two stimuli with gradually increasing stimulus durations. Genereralization testing was along a line-tilt continuum. For one group, the test involved a resistance-to-reinforcement procedure in which responses to all line tilts were reinforced on a variable-interval schedule. For a second group, also tested with the resistance-to-reinforcement procedure, the lines were superimposed on the green field that formerly served as the positive stimulus. A third group was tested in extinction with the combined stimuli. Control groups had no discrimination training but responding to green was nondifferentially reinforced. The control subjects responded more to all line tilts during testing than did the comparable experimental subjects, indicating that the negative stimulus had become an inhibitory stimulus. Both resistance-to-reinforcement groups revealed inhibitory gradients around the negative stimulus, but the gradient for the extinction group was relatively flat. These data are consistent with others that modify Terrace's early conclusion concerning the failure of inhibition to develop during errorless training.
Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 1975 · doi:10.1901/jeab.1975.24-121