Volume 108, Issue 3 pp. 335-350
Research Article

Symmetry and stimulus class formation in humans: Control by temporal location in a successive matching task

Sarah Beurms

Sarah Beurms

Centre for the Psychology of Learning and Experimental Psychopathology, Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, KU, Leuven, Belgium

Sarah Beurms and Frits Traets contributed equally to this study.Search for more papers by this author
Frits Traets

Frits Traets

Department of Decision Sciences and Information Management, Faculty of Economics and Business, Leuven, KU, Leuven, Belgium

Sarah Beurms and Frits Traets contributed equally to this study.Search for more papers by this author
Jan De Houwer

Jan De Houwer

Department of Experimental Clinical and Health Psychology, Ghent University, Belgium

Search for more papers by this author
Tom Beckers

Corresponding Author

Tom Beckers

Centre for the Psychology of Learning and Experimental Psychopathology, Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, KU, Leuven, Belgium

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Tom Beckers, Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, KU Leuven, Tiensestraat 102 box 3712, 3000 Leuven, Belgium. Email: [email protected]Search for more papers by this author
First published: 06 October 2017
Citations: 5

Abstract

Symmetry refers to the observation that subjects will derive B-A (e.g., in the presence of B, select A) after being trained on A-B (e.g., in the presence of A, select B). Whereas symmetry is readily shown in humans, it has been difficult to demonstrate in nonhuman animals. This difficulty, at least in pigeons, may result from responding to specific stimulus properties that change when sample and comparison stimuli switch roles between training and testing. In three experiments with humans, we investigated to what extent human responding is influenced by the temporal location of stimuli using a successive matching-to-sample procedure. Our results indicate that temporal location does not spontaneously control responding in humans, although it does in pigeons. Therefore, the number of functional stimuli that humans respond to in this procedure may be half of the number of functional stimuli that the pigeons respond to. In a fourth experiment, we tested this assumption by doubling the number of functional stimuli controlling responding in human participants in an attempt to make the test more comparable to symmetry tests with pigeons. Here, we found that humans responded according to indirect class formation in the same manner as pigeons do. In sum, our results indicate that functional symmetry is readily observed in humans, even in cases where the temporal features of the stimuli prevent functional symmetry in pigeons. We argue that this difference in behavior between the two species does not necessarily reflect a difference in capacity to show functional symmetry between both species, but could also reflect a difference in the functional stimuli each species responds to.

The full text of this article hosted at iucr.org is unavailable due to technical difficulties.