JOURNAL OF THE EXPERIMENTAL ANALYSIS OF BEHAVIOR 1999, 72, 279–297 NUMBER 3 (NOVEMBER)

SAMPLE-DURATION EFFECTS ON PIGEONS’

DELAYED MATCHING AS A FUNCTION OF
PREDICTABILITY OF DURATION
P ETER J. U RCUIOLI , T HOMAS B. D E M ARSE , AND K AREN M. L IONELLO
PURDUE UNIVERSIT Y

Three experiments assessed the impact of sample duration on pigeons’ delayed matching as a func-
tion of whether or not the samples themselves signaled how long they would remain on. When
duration was uncorrelated with the sample appearing on each matching trial, the typical effect of
duration was observed: Choice accuracy was higher with long (15-s) than with short (5-s) durations.
By contrast, this difference either disappeared or reversed when the 5- and 15-s durations were
correlated with the sample stimuli. Sample duration itself cued comparison choice by some birds in
the latter (predictable) condition when duration was also correlated with the reinforced choice
alternatives. However, even when duration could not provide a cue for choice, pigeons matched
predictably short-duration samples as accurately as, or more accurately than, predictably long-dura-
tion samples. Moreover, this result was observed independently of whether the contextual conditions
of the retention interval were the same as, or different from, those of the intertrial interval. These
results strongly support the view that conditional stimulus control by the samples is partly a function
of their conditioned reinforcing properties, as determined by the relative reduction in overall delay
to reinforcement that they signal.
Key words: sample duration, duration predictability, delayed matching, delay-reduction hypothesis,
conditioned reinforcement, key peck, pigeons

It has long been known that delayed
matching by pigeons is sensitive to the dura-
tion of the sample stimuli. For example, Rob-
erts (1972) and others (Grant, 1976; Nelson
& Wasserman, 1978; Roberts & Grant, 1974)
demonstrated that the longer pigeons view
the sample stimulus prior to the retention in-
terval, the more accurate they are in choos-
ing the correct comparison on the retention
test. This finding is often interpreted to mean
that increasing duration strengthens the me-
morial trace established by the sample stim-
ulus. Consequently, its relevant characteristics
or those of its coded representation (Roitblat,
1980; Urcuioli & Zentall, 1986) are more like-
ly to exert control over comparison choice.
Simply put, the greater the exposure that pi-
geons have to a sample on a given trial, the
more likely it will be that its subsequent be-
This research was partially supported by National Sci-
ence Foundation Grant IBN-94-19929 and by National In-
stitutes of Mental Health Grant MH 56487 to Peter Ur-
cuioli. We thank Lisa Huff, Michelle McIntosh, Leslie
Peck, Jada Pierce, and Jessica Rightsell for their assistance
in conducting the experiments.
Correspondence concerning this article should be ad-
dressed to Peter J. Urcuioli, Department of Psychological
Sciences, Purdue University, 1364 Psychology Building,
West Lafayette, Indiana 47907-1364 (E-mail: uche@psych.
purdue.edu).
havior will come under control of that stim-
ulus.
Observing and conditional stimulus con-
trol by the sample stimuli can also be influ-
enced, however, by variables other than the
length of sample exposure. For example,
Hartl, Dougherty, and Wixted (1996, Experi-
ment 2) recently reported the interesting
finding that the usual performance advan-
tage accruing to long- as opposed to short-
duration samples can be eliminated if the du-
ration of the sample on each matching trial
is predictable. In their study, pigeons per-
formed two-alternative delayed matching with
samples either 5 or 15 s in duration. In one
condition, each sample appeared equally of-
ten for 5 and 15 s in a session (i.e., duration
was uncorrelated with the sample stimuli).
Here, pigeons showed the typical duration ef-
fect: They matched more accurately with 15-
s samples than with 5-s samples. By contrast,
the pigeons matched short-duration samples
as accurately as long-duration samples when
one sample stimulus always appeared for 5 s
in a session and the other sample always ap-
peared for 15 s. In other words, when dura-
tion was correlated with (predictable from)
the samples themselves, delayed matching ac-
curacy was unaffected by the length of time
pigeons were exposed to the sample on each
trial.

279
280 PETER J. URCUIOLI et al.
The finding from this correlated condition
indicates that although a relatively short du-
ration affords less opportunity to observe a
sample stimulus, the observing occasioned by
such a short-duration sample is apparently
enhanced by its predictability. One way this
might arise is if samples of predictably differ-
ent durations have different conditioned re-
inforcing properties, as outlined below. In-
deed, Hartl et al. (1996) explicitly postulated
differences in the conditioned reinforcing
properties of the samples in their correlated
and uncorrelated conditions in order to ac-
count for their findings, using the postulates
of delay-reduction theory (Fantino, 1977;
Wixted, 1989) to derive those differences.
According to the delay-reduction hypothe-
sis, conditioned reinforcement is a direct
function of the size of the reduction in the
overall wait (delay) to reinforcement signaled
by a stimulus. In a delayed matching para-
digm, it is computed by subtracting how long
the pigeon must wait for reinforcement given
the appearance of a sample stimulus from the
average interreinforcement interval in a ses-
sion. Thus, samples that are predictably short
in duration will have larger delay-reduction
values than samples that are predictably long
in duration (assuming, of course, that the fre-
quency of reinforcement on each trial type is
approximately the same). Consequently,
short-duration samples should be more pow-
erful conditioned reinforcers than long-du-
ration samples and would thus be expected
to occasion more vigorous observing behav-
ior (cf. Case & Fantino, 1981; McMillan,
1974). As a result, predictably short-duration
samples should exert relatively strong control
over choice, although this would not neces-
sarily entail higher matching accuracy than
with predictably long-duration samples. The
reason for this qualification is that any en-
hanced level of observing generated by stron-
ger conditioned reinforcing properties of
predictably short-duration samples should be
offset to some degree by less opportunity to
observe those samples than long-duration
samples.
Nevertheless, the net result of the interac-
tion between the effects of conditioned re-
inforcement and the length of exposure to
the sample stimuli should be a reduction in
the size of the performance difference on
long- versus short-duration trials (i.e., the dif-
ference observed when duration is uncorre-
lated with the sample stimuli). This is pre-
cisely what Hartl et al. (1996, Experiment 2)
observed. Note, by the way, that in an uncor-
related condition, all samples would have the
same conditioned reinforcing value because
all would be associated with the same average
reduction in delay to reinforcement. Thus,
under these conditions, observing should be
primarily (if not solely) a function of length
of sample exposure.
Although the findings of Hartl et al. (1996,
Experiment 2) are consistent with the predic-
tions of the delay-reduction hypothesis, they
are (as the authors themselves acknowl-
edged) open to an alternative interpretation
that requires no appeal to variation in the
conditioned reinforcing properties of the
samples. Specifically, sample duration itself
may have provided a cue for choice in Hartl
et al.’s correlated condition (cf. Stubbs,
1968). This possibility arose because the
matching contingencies in that condition al-
ways reinforced choice of one comparison
following the short-duration sample and
choice of the other comparison following the
long-duration sample. If duration did exert
conditional stimulus control in this situation
and if the duration cue was at least as potent
as the samples themselves, then the fact that
delayed matching accuracy did not vary as a
function of duration in their correlated con-
dition is not surprising. Indeed, it would be
expected. One hint that duration had provid-
ed a redundant cue was the additional find-
ing that overall accuracy was higher in Hartl
et al.’s correlated condition than in their un-
correlated condition. This effect is analogous
to other findings in the discrimination liter-
ature showing that redundant relevant cues
often yield faster rates of learning (Miles &
Jenkins, 1973; Warren, 1953) and higher lev-
els of discrimination accuracy (Urcuioli,
1985, 1990a) than a just single cue.
The present experiments were thus con-
ducted in order to clarify the sources of the
interesting effects reported by Hartl et al.
(1996; Experiment 2) and to expand upon
them. More specifically, we designed our ex-
periments to assess whether the performance
differences in their correlated versus uncor-
related conditions were entirely attributable
to the presence versus absence of a duration
cue, respectively. We were especially interest-
 DURATION PREDICTABILITY
ed in determining if the reduced effect of
sample duration when it is correlated with
the sample stimuli also occurs when duration
cannot, by design, provide a cue for choice.
The latter assessment obviously provides a
more discriminating test of the delay-reduc-
tion hypothesis of the sample-duration effect
because it avoids the potential confounding
effect in the Hartl et al. correlated proce-
dure. We also recorded pecking to the sample
stimuli in the correlated condition as an an-
alogue measure of observing behavior in or-
der to see if it might be sensitive to duration
predictability in a way that is suggestive of dif-
ferent conditioned reinforcing properties.
Toward these ends, we modified the de-
layed matching tasks used by Hartl et al.
(1996, Experiment 2) to include two addi-
tional samples. In other words, our pigeons
were trained on four-sample, two-comparison
(many-to-one) delayed matching (e.g., Ur-
cuioli, Zentall, & DeMarse, 1995). In this pro-
cedure, it is possible to present samples for a
predictably short (or long) duration in such
a way that duration itself is unrelated to the
subsequently reinforced comparison choice.
Experiment 1 used this procedure to deter-
mine the effect of predictable versus unpre-
dictable sample durations on delayed match-
ing. In Experiment 2, we reproduced Hartl et
al.’s correlated contingencies in the many-to-
one paradigm and included independent
tests to see if duration in fact became a cue
for choice under conditions that mimicked
theirs. Experiment 3 returned to the proce-
dure of Experiment 1 but used intertrial in-
tervals that were visually distinct from the de-
layed matching trials (and, hence, from the
retention intervals). Here, we were interested
in determining if the effect of duration pre-
dictability under these contextual conditions
would be similar to, or different from, that
occurring when the background conditions
of the trial and intertrial periods are identi-
cal.
EXPERIMENT 1
Experiment 1 compared the effects of pre-
dictable versus unpredictable sample dura-
tions on delayed matching accuracy in a pro-
cedure that insured that sample duration
would not provide an additional cue for com-
parison choice (see Table 1). Birds were
281
Table 1
The conditions of Experiment 1.
Uncorrelated Correlated
5/15 S1 → C11 5 S1 → C11
5/15 S2 → C21 15 S2 → C21
5/15 S3 → C11 15 S3 → C11
5/15 S4 → C21 5 S4 → C21
Note. S1 through S4 denote the four sample stimuli, C1
and C2 denote the correct (1) comparison alternatives,
and 5 and 15 refer to sample durations (in seconds).
Counterbalancing of correct choices and duration by
sample in the correlated condition are not shown.
trained on many-to-one matching to sample
(e.g., Santi & Roberts, 1985; Urcuioli et al.,
1995) with four samples and two compari-
sons. In the uncorrelated condition, each
sample appeared equally often for 5 and 15
s in a session. In the correlated condition, two
of the samples appeared for 5 s and the re-
maining two samples appeared for 15 s. To
prevent sample duration from becoming a
cue for choice in the latter condition, one
comparison choice was reinforced after one
of the 5-s samples, whereas the alternative
comparison choice was reinforced after the
other 5-s sample. Similar contingencies were
in effect for the two 15-s samples.
If comparable levels of accuracy observed
in Hartl et al.’s (1996, Experiment 2) corre-
lated condition simply reflect control over
choice by duration per se, then removing that
cue via the many-to-one contingencies of the
present experiment should yield higher
matching accuracy with long- than with short-
duration samples. In other words, a perfor-
mance advantage on trials with 15-s samples
should occur independently of whether du-
ration is correlated or uncorrelated with the
samples themselves. On the other hand, if
Hartl et al.’s results reflect stronger condi-
tioned reinforcing properties of predictably
short-duration samples, then the correlated
condition data from our experiment should
resemble theirs; that is, the long- versus short-
duration accuracy difference should be re-
duced or eliminated in the correlated as op-
posed to the uncorrelated condition.
M ETHOD
Subjects
Eight White Carneau pigeons (retired
breeders) from the Palmetto Pigeon Plant
282 PETER J. URCUIOLI et al.
served as subjects. Throughout the experi-
ment, the pigeons were maintained at 80% of
their free-feeding body weights by restricted
feeding in their home cages. Birds were
housed individually in stainless steel cages in
a colony room with a 14:10 hr light/dark cy-
cle. Grit and water were available at all times.
All 8 birds had previously participated in a
study involving zero-delay identity and sym-
bolic matching tasks with red and green hues
and vertical and horizontal lines as stimuli.
Apparatus
The experiment was conducted in two
BRS/LVE sound-attenuating enclosures
(Model SEC-002) each of which contained a
panel (Model PIP-016) with three response
keys, a houselight, and a feeder. The response
keys were located behind 2.5-cm circular
openings positioned in a horizontal row 25.5
cm above the chamber floor. The center-to-
center distance between the keys was 8.3 cm.
Behind each key was a 12-stimulus inline pro-
jector (Model IC-901-IDD) that could display
red, green, and white homogeneous fields, a
single white vertical or horizontal line on a
dark background, and a white open circle or
open triangle on a dark background (BRS/
LVE Pattern 696). The rear-mounted feeder
could be accessed through an opening (5.0
cm by 5.8 cm) centered approximately 13 cm
below the center response key. A houselight
located 7.6 cm above the center key was not
used at any time in this experiment. A blower
fan mounted on the outside of each enclo-
sure provided continuous ventilation and
masking noise, and a single Zenith PC-AT mi-
crocomputer interfaced to both chambers
scheduled and recorded all experimental
events.
Procedure
Preliminar y training. All pigeons began
training on many-to-one matching to sample
with four samples (red and green hues, and
vertical and horizontal lines), two compari-
sons (circle and triangle forms), and a 0-s re-
tention interval (RI). Each 96-trial session
consisted of 24 trials with each sample (S1
through S4 in Table 1) and with the two com-
parison alternatives (C1 and C2 in Table 1)
appearing equally often on the left and right
side keys. For half of the birds, the reinforced
(1) choice following the red and vertical-line
samples (S1 and S3) was to the circle (C1)
comparison, whereas the reinforced choice
following the green and horizontal-line sam-
ples (S2 and S4) was to the triangle (C2)
comparison. These relations were reversed
for the remaining birds.
Each matching trial began with a white ho-
mogeneous field on the center key. A single
peck to this ‘‘trial-ready’’ cue immediately
turned it off and, 500 ms later, produced one
of the four samples on the same key. The
sample remained on for 10 s, after which it
went off automatically as the two comparisons
appeared on the adjacent side keys. A single
peck to either comparison then turned both
off and produced either reinforcement or an
equivalent timeout period depending on
whether the choice was correct or incorrect,
respectively. Reinforcement for correct com-
parison choice was constant for each bird
within each session but varied between 2 and
6 s across sessions in a manner that main-
tained body weights as close to the 80% val-
ues as possible. Following reinforcement or
timeout, a dark 20-s intertrial interval (ITI)
ensued.
In each session, the eight possible trial
types (four samples 3 two left-right compar-
ison configurations) occurred equally often
and in random order in successive blocks of
48 trials with the constraint that no trial type
occur more than three times in a row. Each
bird was trained on the zero-delay task until
it matched correctly on 90% or more of all
trials for five of six consecutive sessions. One
bird did not meet this criterion after 80 train-
ing sessions but was nonetheless advanced to
the next phase of preliminary training be-
cause its matching accuracy was consistently
high (about 87% correct).
Next, all birds received mixed-delay train-
ing with RIs of 1 and 6 s separating offset of
the 10-s samples from onset of the compari-
sons. The two intervals occurred equally of-
ten on each of the eight trial types in a ses-
sion. Each bird received a minimum of 10
mixed-delay training sessions and continued
until it met the following three performance
stability criteria: (a) overall matching accura-
cy of at least 75% correct over five consecu-
tive sessions, (b) at least 70% choice accuracy
at each RI over those same sessions, and (c)
overall accuracy for each session of the five-
session block within 65% of the mean. One
 DURATION PREDICTABILITY
Fig. 1. Average proportion of correct choice responses by retention interval on trials with 5-s and 15-s samples in
the uncorrelated and correlated conditions of Experiment 1.
bird did not meet these criteria after consid-
erable training and was dropped from the ex-
periment. Its data are not included in any of
the analyses reported below.
Correlated versus uncorrelated training. Once
each bird met the aforementioned criteria
with 10-s sample durations, 5- and 15-s dura-
tions were introduced. In the correlated con-
dition, two samples always appeared for 5 s
and the other two samples always appeared
for 15 s in a session. For half of the birds, the
5-s samples were the red hue and the hori-
zontal line (S1 and S4 in Table 1) and the 15-
s samples were the green hue and the vertical
line (S2 and S3 in Table 1). These relations
were reversed for the remaining birds. In the
uncorrelated condition, all four samples were
presented equally often for 5 s and 15 s in
each session. Otherwise, all procedural de-
tails were identical to those described previ-
ously. Every bird was exposed twice to the cor-
related and uncorrelated conditions. For 4
birds, the sequence of conditions was corre-
lated, uncorrelated, correlated, uncorrelated;
for the remaining 3 birds, it was the reverse.
A bird remained in each condition for a min-
imum of 10 sessions and until it met the same
three performance criteria mentioned previ-
283
ously. At that point, it was advanced to the
next condition in its sequence.
Statistical analyses. For all statistical analyses
reported in this experiment and those that
follow, Type I error rate was set at .05 using
the tabled F values reported by Rodger
(1975).
R ESULTS
Despite some variability in the rates at
which birds acquired zero-delay many-to-one
matching and reached the performance cri-
teria on the initial mixed-delay task, terminal
matching performances prior to the correlat-
ed and uncorrelated manipulation were very
accurate. For example, mean accuracy over
the last five mixed-delay sessions with the 10-
s sample duration averaged 85.2% correct
(range, 81.0% to 87.9%). Accuracy on trials
with the 1- and 6-s RIs averaged 91.5% correct
(range, 84.6% to 96.7%) and 79.0% correct
(range, 77.5% to 84.6%), respectively.
The left and right panels of Figure 1 show
mean accuracy by sample duration and by RI
in the uncorrelated and correlated condi-
tions, respectively. The data from the two rep-
lications of each condition have been com-
bined because the results from each repli-
284 PETER J. URCUIOLI et al.

Table 2
Delayed matching accuracy by sample duration and retention interval for each pigeon in the
uncorrelated and correlated conditions of Experiment 1.

Uncorrelated Correlated
Bird Duration (s) 1s 6s Average 1s 6s Average

DR1 5 91.67 89.17 90.42 88.75 89.16 88.96

15 96.46 93.33 94.90 95.21 90.83 93.02
DR2 5 77.50 69.79 73.64 91.04 79.58 85.31
15 84.17 80.62 82.40 80.42 78.75 79.58
DR3 5 87.92 76.04 81.98 93.33 83.54 88.44
15 94.38 87.29 90.83 96.66 89.79 93.22
DR4 5 79.58 71.88 75.58 91.88 80.62 86.25
15 93.96 83.33 88.64 87.50 77.08 82.29
DR5 5 76.04 74.58 75.31 91.04 75.42 83.23
15 81.88 81.67 81.78 87.29 79.38 83.33
DR6 5 81.67 70.42 76.04 85.42 73.75 80.21
15 88.96 82.30 85.63 92.92 87.29 90.10
DR7 5 88.12 84.58 86.35 97.92 87.08 92.50
15 88.96 87.50 88.23 91.46 90.42 90.94

cation were very similar. Each data point rep-
resents the average of each bird’s perfor-
mance over its last 10 sessions in a condition.
The results from the uncorrelated condi-
tion show that delayed matching was more
accurate at both RIs with 15-s than with 5-s
samples. This finding replicates Hartl et al.’s
(1996) uncorrelated results and is consistent
with the typical effects of sample duration on
pigeons’ matching performances (Grant,
1976; Nelson & Wasserman, 1978; Roberts &
Grant, 1974). By contrast, the long- versus
short-duration difference virtually disap-
peared in the correlated condition. Indeed,
at the 1-s RI, there was a slight performance
advantage in favor of the short-duration (5-s)
samples.
Separate analyses of variance (ANOVAs)
were performed on the uncorrelated and cor-
related data to assess the impact of sample
duration and RI on performance. ANOVA on
the uncorrelated data confirmed that delayed
matching was more accurate with 15-s than
with 5-s samples, F(1, 6) 5 30.44. There was
also a clear effect of RI with overall accuracy
lower at 6 s than at 1 s, F(1, 6) 5 16.81, but
no Sample Duration 3 RI interaction, F(1, 6)
5 3.01. By contrast, ANOVA on the correlat-
ed data showed that sample duration had no
overall effect on matching accuracy, F(1, 6)
5 0.30. There was an effect of RI, F(1, 6) 5
38.71, but again this variable did not signifi-
cantly interact with duration, F(1, 6) 5 5.23.
The only noteworthy difference between the
data shown in Figure 1 and those from each
replication involved this interaction. In the
second replication (but not in the first), the
crossover in performance as a function of RI
was significant, F(1, 6) 5 10.38.
Table 2 lists each bird’s matching accuracy
by sample duration and by RI in the corre-
lated and uncorrelated conditions. As in Fig-
ure 1, the data have been averaged over rep-
lications. In the uncorrelated condition,
every bird matched more accurately overall
with 15-s than with 5-s samples. By contrast,
only 4 of the 7 birds (DR1, DR3, DR5, and
DR6) showed the same advantage in the cor-
related condition and, for 2 of them (DR3
and DR5), this effect was noticeably reduced.
For the remaining 3 birds (DR2, DR4, and
DR7), overall accuracy in the correlated con-
dition was actually higher with 5-s than with 15-
s samples.
Interestingly, duration predictability in the
correlated condition did appear to affect the
rate at which pigeons pecked the samples,
even though the 5- and 15-s durations had no
overall effect on matching accuracy. Mean
peck rates averaged over the last 10 correlat-
ed sessions from each replication were 1.8
versus 0.9 pecks per second for the 5-s and
15-s hue samples, respectively, and 2.4 versus
1.2 pecks per second for the 5-s and 15-s line
samples, respectively. All 7 birds had higher
peck rates to the 5-s than to the 15-s hue sam-
 DURATION PREDICTABILITY
Fig. 2. Mean sample-response rates (in pecks per sec-
ond) to the 5- and 15-s hue and line samples on the first
and the last sessions of the correlated conditions of Ex-
periment 1.
ple, and 6 of the 7 birds had higher rates to
the 5-s than to the 15-s line sample.
Although these findings cannot be com-
pared to the rates in the uncorrelated con-
dition (because we recorded peck rates by
sample and not by duration), it nonetheless
seems clear that the ability to predict the du-
ration of each sample in the correlated con-
dition affected how pigeons responded to
those samples. For example, Figure 2 shows
that the differences in the sample peck rates
to the short- versus long-duration samples in-
creased from the first to the last session of
exposure to this condition. At the outset of
correlated training, there was a relatively
small difference in peck rates to the 5- and
15-s samples. Moreover, this initial-session dif-
ference was not even apparent in the first rep-
lication of the correlated condition (data not
shown). By the end of correlated training,
however, the difference in peck rates had
grown substantially and, as shown in Figure
2, was entirely attributable to the increasing
rates at which pigeons pecked the short-du-
ration (5-s) samples.
D ISCUSSION
Experiment 1 showed that predictability of
sample duration affects conditional stimulus
control by the samples even when duration
itself cannot provide a redundant cue for
choice. The predictability effect can be seen
by comparing how accurately pigeons
285
matched with long- and short-duration sam-
ples in the correlated versus uncorrelated
condition. In the uncorrelated condition, in
which all four samples randomly appeared
for 5 s and 15 s in a session, pigeons showed
the usual effect of sample duration: They
consistently chose the correct comparison on
the retention test more often following long
(15-s) than short (5-s) samples. By contrast,
the usual performance advantage of long-
over short-duration samples disappeared in
the correlated condition, in which duration
was predictable on the basis of what sample
stimulus appeared on each trial. Here, pi-
geons were equally accurate in their delayed
matching choices with both 5- and 15-s sam-
ples.
This pattern of results is consistent with the
basic premise of the delay-reduction hypoth-
esis, which states that the conditioned rein-
forcing properties of a stimulus are a direct
function of the size of the reduction in over-
all delay-to-reinforcement that it signals. If
the likelihood of sample observing behavior
increases with a sample’s conditioned rein-
forcing properties (cf. Case & Fantino, 1981;
Dinsmoor, 1983), then we would expect that
a predictably short-duration sample would
engender a higher rate of observing than a
predictably long-duration sample. This, in
turn, should counteract some of the advan-
tage normally associated with long-duration
samples (i.e., with the opportunity to view
such samples for a longer period of time).
Indeed, our observation that peck rates to
the predictably short-duration samples in-
creased over sessions in the correlated con-
dition can be viewed as evidence for en-
hanced observing generated by the stronger
conditioned reinforcing properties associated
with them.
The hypothesized differences in the con-
ditioned reinforcing properties of the sam-
ples in the correlated and uncorrelated con-
ditions of this experiment can be derived
from the delay-reduction hypothesis in the
following manner. Assuming perfect match-
ing accuracy, the average interreinforcement
interval in both types of sessions was 33.5 s
(20-s ITI 1 10-s average sample duration 1
3.5-s average RI). In the uncorrelated condi-
tion, in which the duration of the sample on
each trial was unpredictable, the time to re-
inforcement signaled by all four samples was
286 PETER J. URCUIOLI et al.
the same at 13.5 s (10-s average duration 1
3.5-s average RI). Consequently, all four sam-
ples shared the same delay-reduction value of
20 s (33.5 s 2 13.5 s). In the correlated con-
dition, the signaled time to reinforcement for
the predictably short-duration samples was
only 8.5 s (5 s 1 3.5-s average RI) versus 18.5
s for the predictably long-duration samples
(15 s 1 3.5-s average RI). Consequently, the
delay-reduction value was larger for the short-
than for the long-duration samples (25 s vs.
15 s, respectively) in this condition.
In short, the hypothesized conditioned re-
inforcing strengths of the samples in this ex-
periment are ordered as follows: predictable
5-s samples . uncorrelated samples . pre-
dictable 15-s samples. Comparing the right
and left panels of Figure 1 indicates that, in
line with this ordering, accuracy with predict-
ably short-duration samples was higher than
the averaged performance in the uncorrelat-
ed condition. Accuracy with predictably long-
duration samples was not lower, however,
than the average uncorrelated accuracy, al-
though the greater opportunity to observe
the 15-s samples in the correlated condition
might have compensated for any weakening
of observing arising from their lower condi-
tioned reinforcing properties.
EXPERIMENT 2
Experiment 2 assessed the possibility that
the correlated contingencies in Hartl et al.
(1996, Experiment 2) introduced a duration
cue for choice. In other words, might their
pigeons have chosen one comparison when a
sample appeared for only 5 s and the other
comparison when a sample appeared for 15
s? To answer this question, we initially trained
pigeons on many-to-one tasks similar to those
of Experiment 1. However, unlike Experi-
ment 1, the matching contingencies in the
correlated phase of this experiment arranged
consistent reinforcement for one comparison
choice following each short-duration sample
and for the alternative comparison choice fol-
lowing each long-duration sample. Later, we
tested for transfer of those choice responses
to novel samples that were presented for one
of the two durations used in training (i.e., 5
and 15 s). If duration per se had acquired
control over choice in the correlated phase,
then matching accuracy in the transfer test
should be above the level expected by
chance.
We also ran the same transfer test after un-
correlated training (i.e., after training in
which all four samples appeared equally often
for 5 and 15 s). Here, the expectation was
that matching accuracy with the novel 5- and
15-s samples should be at chance and, most
certainly, lower than accuracy in the test that
followed correlated training.
M ETHOD
Subjects and Apparatus
Eight White Carneau pigeons of the same
age and obtained from the same source as
those used in Experiment 1 served in this ex-
periment. Their housing and maintenance
conditions were identical to those described
in Experiment 1. All birds had previous ex-
perience in two-choice identity and symbolic
matching tasks involving red and green hues
and vertical and horizontal lines (BRS/LVE
Pattern No. 696) but none had any experi-
ence on the delayed matching contingencies
used here. Prior to the start of this experi-
ment, they were randomly divided into two
equal groups.
The apparatus was identical to that previ-
ously described with the exception that the
inline projector behind the center response
key was equipped to display two additional vi-
sual stimuli: a white X on a black background
and a blue 1 also on a black background.
The latter stimulus consisted of the simulta-
neous illumination of a uniform blue hue
and an otherwise white 1 on a black back-
ground.
Procedure
The design of this experiment was similar
to that of Experiment 1 with the addition of
two matching-to-sample transfer tests, one af-
ter initial correlated (or uncorrelated) train-
ing with 5- and 15-s samples and the other
after subsequent training in the opposite con-
dition. One group of pigeons received cor-
related training first and uncorrelated train-
ing second (Group Corr-Uncorr), whereas
the other group was trained in the opposite
order (Group Uncorr-Corr).
Preliminary training. Preliminary training in-
volved zero- and mixed-delay many-to-one
matching to sample similar to the corre-
 DURATION PREDICTABILITY 287

Table 3
The two training conditions and the transfer-test contingencies in Experiment 2.

Training
Group Phase 1 Phase 2 Transfer test

Corr-Uncorr 5 S1 → C11
15 S2 → C21 5 S5 → food 5 S5 → C11
5 S3 → C11 15 S6 → food 15 S6 → C21
15 S4 → C21
Uncorr-Corr 5/15 S1 → C11
5/15 S2 → C21 5 S5 → food 5 S5 → C11
5/15 S3 → C11 15 S6 → food 15 S6 → C21
5/15 S4 → C21
Note. S1 through S6 denote the six sample stimuli, C1 and C2 denote the correct (1) comparison alternatives, and
5 and 15 refer to sample durations (in seconds). Counterbalancing of correct choices and duration by sample in the
correlated condition are not shown.

sponding tasks in Experiment 1. All pigeons
initially learned to match 10-s red and green
sample hues and vertical and horizontal sam-
ple lines to circle and triangle comparisons
to the 90% accuracy criterion previously de-
scribed. Once each bird reached criterion,
mixed-delay training with RIs of 1 and 6 s be-
gan and continued until the three perfor-
mance criteria previously described for this
preliminary training phase were met. All oth-
er details of the tasks, including counterbal-
ancing of the sample–correct choice rela-
tions, were identical to those of Experiment 1.
Training Phase 1. Next, each bird was
trained on mixed-delay, many-to-one match-
ing with 5- and 15-s sample durations. For
Group Corr-Uncorr, one hue and one line
sample always appeared for 5 s in each ses-
sion, and the other hue and line sample al-
ways appeared for 15 s. For these birds, then,
samples were correlated with duration during
Phase 1 training. The sample–duration and
sample–correct choice relations were coun-
terbalanced across birds. Unlike Experiment
1, however, the reinforced (correct) compar-
ison choice was the same on all trials with a
5-s sample and likewise for all trials with a 15-
s sample (see Table 3). Thus, when trained
in this condition, birds had two potential cues
to guide their choices: the sample stimulus
appearing on the center key (red, green, ver-
tical, or horizontal) and its duration (5 or 15
s).
For Group Uncorr-Corr, all four samples
(S1 through S4 in Table 3) appeared equally
often for 5 and 15 s during each Phase 1
training session. For these birds, then, only
the samples themselves provided a reliable
cue for choice. The sample–correct choice re-
lations in this group were matched to those
in Group Corr-Uncorr.
All pigeons were trained on their respective
Phase 1 tasks until they met the three afore-
mentioned performance criteria for mixed-
delay training.
Training Phase 2. In preparation for the first
transfer test, pigeons in both groups received
reinforced off-baseline training with two new
center-key stimuli, a blue 1 and a white X (S5
and S6 in Table 3). Each trial of the 60-trial
Phase 2 sessions began with the white trial-
ready stimulus on the center key. A single
peck to the white center key turned it off and,
500 ms later, produced either the blue 1 or
the white X on the same key for 5 or 15 s,
respectively (i.e., each stimulus was presented
at only one duration). After the scheduled in-
terval had elapsed, the stimulus went off in-
dependently of responding, and food was de-
livered. The two new stimuli appeared equally
often in each Phase 2 session, with the restric-
tion that neither appeared more than three
times in a row.
Most pigeons consistently pecked the blue
1 and white X stimuli (S5 and S6) on their
initial Phase 2 sessions and were thus given a
total of five sessions of reinforced key-peck
training with them. Two birds (one in each
group), however, seldom pecked these stim-
uli during initial exposure. Consequently,
pecking to S5 and S6 was explicitly shaped by
the method of successive approximations
over the course of two or three separate ses-
sions. Once pecking was established, these
288 PETER J. URCUIOLI et al.
birds then received two or three additional
training sessions with each stimulus appear-
ing for its respective duration.
Upon completion of Phase 2, each bird re-
ceived refresher training on its Phase 1
mixed-delay matching task. Refreshers were
given until overall matching accuracy was at
least 75% correct and accuracy at each RI was
at least 70% correct for a single session. This
required one to four sessions (M ø two ses-
sions).
Transfer Test 1. A single 80-trial transfer test
with the blue 1 and white X samples (S5 and
S6) and the circle and triangle comparisons
(C1 and C2) was given on the day immedi-
ately following the last refresher. The dura-
tions of the blue 1 and white X samples con-
tinued to be 5 and 15 s, respectively, and each
sample was preceded by the white trial-ready
cue on the center response key. Each of the
four possible trial types (two samples 3 two
left-right configurations of the comparisons)
was presented equally often and in random
order during the test session. Likewise, the
two RIs (1 and 6 s) occurred with equal fre-
quency on each trial type. For Group Corr-
Uncorr, the reinforced choice following the
5-s blue 1 sample (S5) was to the same com-
parison alternative that was correct following
the two 5-s samples in its preceding many-to-
one task. Similarly, the reinforced choice fol-
lowing the 15-s white X sample (S6) was to
the alternative comparison (i.e., the compar-
ison correct following the two 15-s samples in
the many-to-one task). For Group Uncorr-
Corr, the reinforced sample–choice relations
in this test were matched on a bird-by-bird
basis to the reinforced relations represented
in Group Corr-Uncorr.
Training Phase 3. Following the transfer test,
each bird was returned to mixed-delay many-
to-one matching but was trained in the con-
dition opposite of that they had initially ex-
perienced. In other words, for Group
Corr-Uncorr, each sample stimulus now ap-
peared equally often for 5 and 15 s in each
session (i.e., they received uncorrelated train-
ing). Conversely, for Group Uncorr-Corr, two
samples (one hue and one line) always ap-
peared for 5 s, whereas the other two samples
(the remaining hue and line) always ap-
peared for 15 s (i.e., they received correlated
training). Otherwise, all procedural details
including the performance and stability cri-
teria were identical to those for Training
Phase 1.
Transfer Test 2. Once the aforementioned
criteria had been met, each bird was returned
to the off-baseline task with the blue 1 and
white X center-key stimuli for one or two ses-
sions. On the following session, they were
tested again with these stimuli serving as sam-
ples for the circle and form comparisons.
This test session was identical in every respect
to the first transfer test session.
R ESULTS
Despite relatively slow acquisition of zero-
delay matching with 10-s sample durations
(range, 26 to 80 sessions) and progress to-
ward meeting the performance criteria for
mixed-delay training (range, 11 to 56 ses-
sions), delayed matching performances at the
end of preliminary training were quite accu-
rate and did not differ appreciably across
groups. Mean overall accuracy for Groups
Corr-Uncorr and Uncorr-Corr over the last
five mixed-delay sessions with 10-s samples
was 82.0% versus 83.0% correct, respectively.
At the 1-s RI, accuracy averaged 86.2% and
89.6%, respectively, for the two groups. The
corresponding figures for the 6-s RI were
77.9% and 76.4%, respectively. There were
no significant between-group differences in
any of these performance measures, all Fs(1,
6) , 1.50.
Figure 3 shows the retention functions by
sample duration for the last 10 sessions of un-
correlated (left panel) and correlated (right
panel) training with the 5- and 15-s samples
averaged across all birds. When each sample
appeared equally often for 5 and 15 s in a
session (uncorrelated training), delayed
matching accuracy was higher at each RI with
the long than with the short duration. By con-
trast, when duration was correlated with sam-
ple stimulus, the usual advantage of the long
over short duration reversed. A separate AN-
OVA on the uncorrelated data indicated an
overall effect of duration, F(1, 7) 5 57.32, but
neither the RI effect nor the Duration 3 RI
interaction were significant, Fs(1, 7) 5 2.61
and 0.24, respectively. ANOVA on the corre-
lated data showed no significant effect of ei-
ther variable or its interaction with the other,
all Fs(1, 7) , 5.40.
Table 4 shows delayed matching accuracy
for each subject over its last 10 sessions of
 DURATION PREDICTABILITY 289

Fig. 3. Average proportion of correct choice responses by retention interval on trials with 5-s and 15-s samples in
the uncorrelated and correlated conditions of Experiment 2.

uncorrelated and correlated training. For the
uncorrelated condition, all 8 subjects showed
higher overall accuracy with 15-s than with 5-
s samples. For the correlated condition, 6 of
the 8 subjects showed the reverse effect; the
long- versus short-duration difference for the
remaining 2 subjects (C1 and U4) was smaller
than that obser ved in the uncorrelated
phase. On average, the mean difference in
accuracy between the 15- and 5-s samples was

Table 4
Delayed matching accuracy by sample duration and retention interval for each pigeon in the
uncorrelated and correlated conditions of Experiment 2.

Uncorrelated Correlated
Bird Duration (s) 1s 6s Average 1s 6s Average

C1 5 83.33 77.50 80.42 84.17 79.17 81.67

15 85.83 86.67 86.25 88.33 82.08 85.21
C2 5 81.25 82.50 81.88 90.42 84.58 87.50
15 85.00 82.50 83.75 80.42 80.42 80.42
C3 5 75.42 84.17 79.80 87.92 88.75 88.34
15 86.25 91.25 88.75 80.83 93.75 87.29
C4 5 75.00 69.58 72.29 96.67 81.67 89.17
15 82.08 73.33 77.71 91.25 72.50 81.88
U1 5 67.08 70.42 68.75 82.50 79.17 80.84
15 76.25 80.00 78.12 67.92 65.42 66.67
U2 5 89.17 70.42 79.80 97.92 90.42 94.17
15 95.83 82.92 89.38 89.58 90.83 90.21
U3 5 79.58 65.00 72.29 88.75 82.92 85.84
15 84.58 75.00 79.79 86.25 81.25 85.63
U4 5 85.83 78.75 82.29 91.67 76.25 83.96
15 92.92 85.00 88.96 87.08 81.25 84.17
290 PETER J. URCUIOLI et al.

Fig. 4. Left panel: mean percentage of correct choice responses averaged over retention interval for the two
mixed-delay transfer tests in Experiment 2. Right panel: mean percentage of correct choice responses for the two
zero-delay transfer tests in Experiment 2. Group Corr-Uncorr received the first of its two tests after correlated training,
and the second after uncorrelated training, in each delay condition. The training conditions preceding each test
were reversed for Group Uncorr-Corr.

6.9% in the uncorrelated condition and
23.8% in the correlated condition, F(1, 7) 5
22.86.
The left panel of Figure 4 shows each
group’s accuracy averaged over RIs on its first
and second transfer tests in which the blue 1
and white X samples were substituted for the
samples used during many-to-one training.
For Group Uncorr-Corr, the first test depicts
performance following uncorrelated train-
ing, whereas the second test depicts perfor-
mance following correlated training. For
Group Corr-Uncorr, the first test shows trans-
fer performance following correlated train-
ing, and the second test shows transfer follow-
ing uncorrelated training.
Delayed matching with the two novel sam-
ples was more accurate on the first test than
on the second for Group Corr-Uncorr, but
the reverse was true for Group Uncorr-Corr.
In other words, for both groups, matching ac-
curacy with the novel samples was higher fol-
lowing correlated than uncorrelated training.
Averaged over RIs and subjects, choice accu-
racy on the test that immediately followed
correlated training was 59.1% correct versus
50.0% correct on the test following uncorre-
lated training, F(1, 7) 5 7.02, p , .05.
Nonetheless, the averaged data indicate
only very weak transfer of matching to the
novel samples. Moreover, there was consid-
erable variability in test performances across
individual subjects. As shown in the leftmost
columns of Table 5, duration was most likely
a cue for choice for C4. It may have also ex-
erted some weak conditional stimulus control
for C1, U2, U3, and U4, although their ab-
solute levels of performance are not high, es-
pecially considering that the results for the U
birds came from their second test session.
After obtaining these results, we were con-
cerned that testing with delays may have con-
tributed to the relatively poor overall accu-
racy. Consequently, we conducted two
additional transfer tests without delays. In
preparation for them, each bird was first re-
 DURATION PREDICTABILITY 291

Table 5 (1996, Experiment 2) were replicable in

Matching accuracy for each subject on the transfer tests many-to-one matching with contingencies
following uncorrelated and correlated training in Exper- that mimicked those in their correlated con-
iment 2.
dition. In other words, we found that long
Transfer with delays Transfer without delays sample durations produced higher levels of
Bird Uncorrelated Correlated Uncorrelated Correlated
delayed matching accuracy than short sample
durations when duration was unpredictable
C1 50.00 61.25 72.50 65.00 (i.e., uncorrelated with the sample stimuli).
C2 52.50 45.00 32.50 48.75 We also found that this effect disappeared
C3 46.25 43.75 57.50 75.00
C4 66.25 80.00 88.75 91.25 when duration was predictable (i.e., correlat-
U1 43.75 51.25 58.75 58.75 ed with the sample stimuli).
U2 42.50 61.25 62.50 63.75 Second, our transfer results indicated that
U3 41.25 61.25 51.25 62.50 duration exerted some conditional stimulus
U4 57.50 68.75 65.00 77.50
control after training in the correlated con-
Note. The order of the tests for the C birds was corre- dition. That control was certainly ‘‘spotty’’ in
lated-uncorrelated (the reverse of the order of the two the sense that only the results of a few pi-
sets of columns), whereas for the U birds it was uncor-
related-correlated. geons showed evidence of choices being cued
by the 5- versus 15-s duration. Furthermore,
the level of transfer was not particularly high.
turned to its Phase 1 task with 5- and 15-s Despite this, it is noteworthy that in each set
samples for a minimum of 10 sessions and of tests, 2 of the 4 birds receiving their first
until the three aforementioned performance transfer test after correlated training were less
criteria were once again met. They then re- accurate when subsequently tested again fol-
ceived two additional off-baseline sessions lowing uncorrelated training. This is the op-
with the blue 1 and white X stimuli, after posite of what would be expected on the basis
which they were given a third transfer test of practice.
with 0-s delays separating sample offset from In any event, any control by a duration cue
comparison onset. After this third test, each in the correlated condition makes the be-
bird was returned for a minimum of 10 ses- tween-condition comparisons and interpreta-
sions to its Phase 2 task and until it again met tions of delayed matching accuracy compli-
the performance criteria. This was followed cated, if not impossible. Thus, the procedure
by two additional off-baseline sessions with used in Experiment 1 becomes all the more
blue 1 and white X stimuli and, finally, a important for evaluating the predictions of
fourth zero-delay transfer test. the delay-reduction hypothesis. Our final ex-
The right panel of Figure 4 and the right periment returned to that procedure modi-
columns of Table 5 show the results of this fied in such a way that the delayed matching
second set of transfer tests. Once again, the trials were visually distinct from the intertrial
overall pattern of results showed more accu- interval.
rate matching of the ‘‘novel’’ samples to the
familiar comparisons following correlated
than following uncorrelated training. In Fig- EXPERIMENT 3
ure 4, this can be seen by the higher first- Experiment 3 was designed and conducted
session data point for Group Corr-Uncorr in exactly the same fashion as Experiment 1
and the higher second-session data point for except that the houselight was illuminated
Group Uncorr-Corr. Six of the 8 birds showed throughout each delayed matching trial and
this effect. The data in Table 5 suggest that was turned off during the ITI. Thus, the trial
duration was most probably a cue for choice and intertrial periods were distinct, a proce-
following correlated training for C3, C4, U3, dure commonly used in our laboratory for
and U4. studies of animal working memory (e.g., Ur-
cuioli & DeMarse, 1997; Urcuioli & Zentall,
D ISCUSSION 1986, 1990). At issue was whether the re-
There are two noteworthy findings from duced sample-duration effect observed with
Experiment 2. First, the correlated versus un- predictable sample durations also occurs un-
correlated differences reported by Hartl et al. der these training conditions.
292 PETER J. URCUIOLI et al.
A priori, there is no principled reason ac-
cording to delay-reduction theory to expect
that the results should be any different from
what we found in Experiment 1 ( John Wix-
ted, personal communication, May 19, 1998;
Edmund Fantino, personal communication,
May 30, 1998). Nevertheless, in some delayed
matching tasks, performances can vary sub-
stantially depending upon the correspon-
dence (or lack thereof) between the condi-
tions of the RI and those of the ITI (e.g.,
Sherburne, Zentall, & Kaiser, 1998; Spetch &
Rusak, 1992; see also Fetterman & MacEwen,
1989; Zentall, 1997). If the same is true here,
then differentiating the trial from the inter-
trial interval could affect delay-reduction val-
ues in such a way that predictably short-du-
ration samples no longer have a conditioned
reinforcement advantage. For instance, seg-
menting a session into distinct trial and in-
tertrial periods might significantly alter the
bird’s within-session discrimination of the av-
erage interreinforcement interval. If so, long-
duration samples might support higher levels
of accuracy than short-duration samples in-
dependently of duration predictability.
M ETHOD
Subjects and Apparatus
Twelve White Carneau retired breeders
with similar histories to those used in the pre-
ceding experiments were used. They were
housed and maintained in the same fashion
as the pigeons in Experiments 1 and 2. One
half of the birds were randomly assigned to a
group in which the alternating correlated
and uncorrelated delayed matching sequence
began with the correlated condition. The oth-
er half were assigned to a group in which the
sequence began with the uncorrelated con-
dition.
The apparatus was identical to that previ-
ously described.
Procedure
The procedure for this experiment and the
performance criteria for each phase were
identical to those of Experiment 1. The only
procedural difference was that the houselight
was illuminated 1 s prior to trial onset (i.e.,
prior to the center-key presentation of the
white trial-ready stimulus) and remained on
until the end of the reinforcement period or
until an incorrect comparison choice re-
sponse was made. The first 19 s of the ensu-
ing ITI was spent in darkness, after which the
houselight was again turned on for the sub-
sequent trial.
Four birds, 2 in each group, were dropped
from the experiment prior to completing any
of the major phases. Two birds did not reach
criterion on the initial zero-delay matching
task after 70 training sessions, 1 did not meet
the performance criteria on the preliminary
mixed-delay task after 50 sessions, and the re-
maining bird did not meet these criteria after
30 sessions in its first uncorrelated condition.
R ESULTS AND D ISCUSSION
Figure 5 shows delayed matching accuracy
by sample duration and RI in the uncorrelat-
ed and correlated conditions averaged over
pigeons and replications. Table 6 provides
the individual-subject data. The results closely
mirror those obtained in Experiment 1. Spe-
cifically, matching was more accurate with
long- than with short-duration samples when
duration was uncorrelated with the sample
stimuli, F(1, 7) 5 11.40. Seven of the 8 pi-
geons showed this effect. The overall effect
of RI and its interaction with duration in this
condition were not statistically significant,
Fs(1, 7) 5 4.99 and 1.33, respectively. By con-
trast, matching was more accurate overall
with short- than with long-duration samples
when duration was correlated with the sam-
ple stimuli, F(1, 7) 5 6.69. Seven of the 8
pigeons showed this ‘‘reversed’’ effect. AN-
OVA also revealed significant effects of RI
and its interaction with sample duration in
the correlated condition, Fs(1, 7) 5 31.78
and 19.19, respectively.
As in Experiment 1, birds pecked the short-
duration samples at higher rates than the
long samples, with the effect most pro-
nounced at the end of correlated training.
Figure 6 shows mean rates of sample respond-
ing to the 5- and 15-s samples from each di-
mension on the first and last sessions of cor-
related training (averaged over the two
replications of that condition). On the first
session, the mean peck rate to the 5-s line
sample was higher than to the 15-s sample,
but the corresponding rates for the hue sam-
ples were virtually identical. With continued
training in the correlated condition, however,
peck rates to the short-duration (5-s) samples
 DURATION PREDICTABILITY 293

Fig. 5. Average proportion of correct choice responses by retention interval on trials with 5-s and 15-s samples in
the uncorrelated and correlated conditions of Experiment 3.

increased substantially, whereas rates to the
long-duration (15-s) samples decreased slight-
ly. Consequently, by the last correlated ses-
sion, mean peck rates were considerably high-
er to the 5-s than to the 15-s samples, with all
but 1 bird (UNC1 on line-sample trials) show-
ing this effect.
In sum, this experiment indicates that the
conditions associated with a delayed match-
ing trial vis-à-vis those associated with the ITI

Table 6
Delayed matching accuracy by sample duration and retention interval for each pigeon in the
uncorrelated and correlated conditions of Experiment 3.

Uncorrelated Correlated
Bird Duration (s) 1s 6s Average 1s 6s Average

CU1 5 75.21 71.88 73.54 92.30 86.67 89.49

15 82.30 83.96 83.13 83.12 77.50 80.31
CU2 5 87.71 71.04 79.38 93.75 73.75 83.75
15 90.62 79.17 84.90 89.38 75.62 82.50
CU4 5 92.50 86.46 89.48 96.88 86.25 91.56
15 96.67 89.79 93.23 93.12 89.38 91.25
CU6 5 75.41 72.50 73.96 96.04 84.38 90.21
15 91.67 88.12 89.90 92.30 85.42 88.86
UNC1 5 86.25 80.00 83.12 95.62 87.71 91.67
15 87.71 85.62 86.67 90.42 88.54 89.48
UNC2 5 80.83 73.96 77.40 95.62 87.29 91.46
15 92.29 85.94 89.17 84.17 82.29 83.54
UNC3 5 66.25 75.42 70.83 88.96 82.08 85.52
15 80.83 83.54 82.18 88.34 83.33 85.83
UNC4 5 81.25 70.42 75.84 87.50 71.67 79.58
15 73.75 71.25 72.50 70.42 66.67 68.54
294 PETER J. URCUIOLI et al.
Fig. 6. Mean sample-response rates (in pecks per sec-
ond) to the 5- and 15-s hue and line samples on the first
and the last sessions of the correlated conditions of Ex-
periment 3.
do not affect the effects of predictable versus
unpredictable sample durations on perfor-
mance. The implication, of course, is that de-
lay-reduction values associated with the vari-
ous sample stimuli, or at least the relative
ordering of those values, are not affected by
the segmentation of a session into distinct tri-
al and intertrial periods.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
The results from the present experiments
add to a long list of findings showing that
conditional discrimination learning and per-
formance are affected by predictable rela-
tions besides those specifically comprising the
matching contingencies themselves. Here, we
showed, as Hartl et al. (1996) did before us,
that the duration of a sample stimulus has a
much smaller (and even the opposite) effect
on delayed matching accuracy when it is pre-
dictable than when it is not. Specifically, al-
though pigeons matched more accurately
with long- than with short-duration samples
when duration was uncorrelated with the
sample stimuli, they showed either no such
effect (Experiments 1 and 2) or the opposite
effect (Experiment 3) when duration was cor-
related with (predictable from) the samples.
Our major contribution was to show that the
diminution (or reversal) of the typical dura-
tion effect (Grant, 1976; Nelson & Wasser-
man, 1978; Roberts, 1972; Roberts & Grant,
1974) occurred even when duration itself
could not provide a cue for choice. This is an
important finding because the results of
Hartl et al. (1996, Experiment 2) could be
interpreted in an ‘‘apples versus oranges’’
manner. In other words, their results were po-
tentially, and most likely, contaminated by the
introduction of a duration cue in their cor-
related (predictable) condition, as suggested
by the transfer results from our second ex-
periment.
Given the indication from Experiment 2
that duration itself may at least partly cue
choice when it is correlated with the correct
comparison alternative, Experiments 1 and 3
provide better tests of how the purported
conditioned reinforcing properties of the
samples affect their conditional stimulus con-
trol. According to the delay-reduction hy-
pothesis, predictably short-duration samples
have higher conditioned reinforcing values
than predictably long-duration samples, and
this difference in value should diminish the
usual effect of sample exposure time on
matching accuracy. The results of Experi-
ments 1 and 3 clearly confirm this prediction:
Samples of different but predictable dura-
tions had more similar effects on delayed
matching accuracy than samples of different
but unpredictable durations.
Other predictability effects in the delayed
matching literature include signaling the
forthcoming RI (MacDonald & Grant, 1987;
Wasserman, Grosch, & Nevin, 1982), the par-
ticular outcome following correct choices
(e.g., Urcuioli, 1990b), and common correct
choice responses (e.g., Urcuioli, Zentall, Jack-
son-Smith, & Steirn, 1989). For example,
when the length of the RI is signaled by pre-
senting a cue along with or following the sam-
ple stimulus, delayed matching accuracy
tends to be higher at short intervals and low-
er at long intervals, relative to performance
at those same intervals when they are unsig-
naled. The full interpretation of this repro-
ducible finding (cf. MacDonald & Grant,
1987; Wasserman et al., 1982) is likely to in-
clude heightened and lowered attention to
samples preceding short and long RIs, re-
spectively, as well as differential delays to or
rates of reinforcement associated with those
samples. Attentional factors, perhaps in the
form of differential observing, are likely to
operate when the signal for the upcoming RI
is presented prior to or along with the sam-
 DURATION PREDICTABILITY
ple. On the other hand, when the signal is
presented following the sample, the predict-
ability effect must involve other (e.g., rein-
forcement) variables (MacDonald & Grant,
1987).
A better known predictability effect in the
delayed matching literature involves differ-
ential outcomes (Trapold, 1970). In this par-
adigm, each sample stimulus signals a differ-
ent reinforcing outcome for choosing the
correct comparison that follows it. These con-
tingencies typically generate faster acquisition
and higher levels of delayed matching accu-
racy than when the different outcomes are
random (unpredictable) with respect to the
samples (e.g., Peterson, 1984; Urcuioli,
1990b). The usual, and independently verifi-
able, interpretation of this effect is that when
the samples uniquely signal end-of-trial out-
comes, they generate an additional cue for
comparison choice, namely, an outcome expec-
tancy (Honig, Matheson, & Dodd, 1984; Pe-
terson, 1984). Although there is some dispute
regarding the nature of outcome expectan-
cies (e.g., whether or not they are differential
behavior conditioned to the samples; Urcuio-
li & DeMarse, 1994; cf. Urcuioli & Honig,
1980), there is much less dispute regarding
how they enhance performance. It is gener-
ally agreed that outcome expectancies pro-
vide an additional (redundant) cue for
choice (Urcuioli, 1991; Urcuioli & DeMarse,
1996).
The many-to-one matching procedure itself
also contains elements of predictability. In its
simplest version (four samples and two com-
parisons), two perceptually different samples
signal a common comparison-choice re-
sponse. As a consequence of this common re-
lation, an additional cue for comparison
choice (besides the samples themselves) ap-
pears to develop—namely, what Urcuioli et
al. (1989) and others (e.g., Grant, 1982) have
called a common code. The common code re-
fers to the finding that the pigeon’s choices
in the many-to-one task are governed not
only by the physical characteristics of the sam-
ple stimuli but also by their associative attri-
butes (viz., the common comparison associa-
tion the samples share with each other). This
can be demonstrated by a transfer-of-control
test. Specifically, after training on many-to-
one matching, new comparison choices sub-
sequently learned to a subset of the original
295
samples will immediately transfer to the re-
maining samples (Urcuioli et al., 1989, Ex-
periment 2; Wasserman, deVolder, & Cop-
page, 1992). Although the precise
mechanisms underlying this effect are not ful-
ly understood (but see Urcuioli, 1996), the
effect itself clearly depends upon the within-
session predictability of a common choice re-
sponse by multiple samples (Urcuioli et al.,
1995).
The processes responsible for the duration
predictability effect reported here are
thought to be related to the conditioned re-
inforcing properties of each sample stimulus.
The translation of predictable and unpredict-
able sample durations into different condi-
tioned reinforcing values has been described
elsewhere in this paper and in Hartl et al.
(1996). An important link in the argument
involves how those values produce variation
in delayed matching accuracy. One sugges-
tion that has already been described is that
samples with stronger conditioned reinforc-
ing properties support more vigorous observ-
ing behavior. This connection seems quite
plausible for two reasons. First, in concurrent-
chains studies of conditioned reinforcement,
observing behavior occurs more frequently
when it produces stimuli associated with larg-
er reductions in delay to reinforcement (i.e.,
stronger conditioned reinforcers; e.g., Fanti-
no & Moore, 1980). Second, Experiments 1
and 3 showed that pigeons pecked predict-
ably short-duration samples more rapidly
than predictably long-duration samples. In
conjunction with previous findings that de-
layed matching accuracy increases the more
often pigeons peck the samples (Roberts,
1972), these behavioral effects could easily re-
duce the ‘‘normal’’ effect of sample duration
on accuracy.
Nonetheless, this account of our data and
those of Hartl et al. (1996) is supported only
indirectly. The delay-reduction hypothesis of
conditioned reinforcement as it applies to the
samples in delayed matching would be but-
tressed considerably by independent tests
(i.e., those conducted outside of the match-
ing context) showing that pigeons will re-
spond more to produce samples with large
than with small delay-reduction values. Such
a demonstration would solidify the explana-
tions for all of these results.
296 PETER J. URCUIOLI et al.
REFERENCES
Case, D. A., & Fantino, E. (1981). The delay-reduction
hypothesis of conditioned reinforcement and punish-
ment: Observing behavior. Journal of the Experimental
Analysis of Behavior, 35, 93–108.
Dinsmoor, J. A. (1983). Observing and conditioned re-
inforcement. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 6, 693–728.
Fantino, E. (1977). Conditioned reinforcement: Choice
and information. In W. K. Honig & J. E. R. Staddon
(Eds.), Handbook of operant behavior (pp. 313–339). En-
glewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Fantino, E., & Moore, J. (1980). Uncertainty reduction,
conditioned reinforcement, and observing. Journal of
the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 33, 3–13.
Fetterman, J. G., & MacEwen, D. (1989). Short-term
memory for responses: The ‘‘choose-small’’ effect.
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 52, 311–
324.
Grant, D. S. (1976). Effect of sample presentation time
on long-delay matching in the pigeon. Learning and
Motivation, 7, 580–590.
Grant, D. S. (1982). Prospective and retrospective cod-
ing of samples of stimuli, responses, and reinforcers
in delayed matching with pigeons. Learning and Mo-
tivation, 13, 265–280.
Hartl, J. A., Dougherty, D. H., & Wixted, J. T. (1996).
Separating the effects of trial-specific and average
sample-stimulus duration in delayed matching to sam-
ple in pigeons. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of
Behavior, 66, 231–242.
Honig, W. K., Matheson, W. R., & Dodd, P. W. D. (1984).
Outcome expectancies as mediators for discriminative
responding. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 38, 196–
217.
MacDonald, S. E., & Grant, D. S. (1987). Effects of sig-
naling retention interval length on delayed matching-
to-sample in pigeons. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Animal Behavior Processes, 13, 116–125.
McMillan, J. C. (1974). Average uncertainty as a deter-
minant of observing behavior. Journal of the Experimen-
tal Analysis of Behavior, 22, 401–408.
Miles, C. G., & Jenkins, H. M. (1973). Overshadowing
in operant conditioning as a function of discrimina-
bility. Learning and Motivation, 4, 11–27.
Nelson, K. R., & Wasserman, E. A. (1978). Temporal
factors influencing the pigeons’ successive matching-
to-sample performance: Sample duration, intertrial
interval, and retention interval. Journal of the Experi-
mental Analysis of Behavior, 30, 153–162.
Peterson, G. B. (1984). How expectancies guide behav-
ior. In H. L. Roitblat, T. G. Bever, & H. S. Terrace
(Eds.), Animal cognition (pp. 135–148). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Roberts, W. A. (1972). Short-term memory in the pi-
geon: Effects of repetition and spacing. Journal of Ex-
perimental Psychology, 94, 74–83.
Roberts, W. A., & Grant, D. S. (1974). Short-term mem-
ory in the pigeon with presentation time precisely
controlled. Learning and Motivation, 5, 393–408.
Rodger, R. S. (1975). The number of non-zero, post-hoc
contrasts from ANOVA and error rate. I. British Jour-
nal of Mathematical & Statistical Psychology, 28, 71–78.
Roitblat, H. (1980). Codes and coding processes in pi-
geon short-term memory. Animal Learning & Behavior,
8, 341–351.
Santi, A., & Roberts, W. A. (1985). Prospective represen-
tation: The effects of varied mapping of sample stim-
uli to comparison stimuli and differential trial out-
comes on pigeons’ working memory. Animal Learning
& Behavior, 13, 103–108.
Sherburne, L. M., Zentall, T. R., & Kaiser, D. H. (1998).
Timing in pigeons: The choose-short effect may result
from pigeons’ ‘‘confusion’’ between delay and inter-
trial intervals. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 5, 516–
522.
Spetch, M. L., & Rusak, B. (1992). Time present and
time past. In W. K. Honig & J. G. Fetterman (Eds.),
Cognitive aspects of stimulus control (pp. 47–67). Hills-
dale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Stubbs, D. A. (1968). The discrimination of stimulus du-
ration by pigeons. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of
Behavior, 11, 223–238.
Trapold, M. A. (1970). Are expectancies based upon dif-
ferent reinforcing events discriminably different?
Learning and Motivation, 1, 129–140.
Urcuioli, P. J. (1985). On the role of differential sample
behaviors in matching-to-sample. Journal of Experimen-
tal Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 11, 502–519.
Urcuioli, P. J. (1990a). Differential outcomes and many-
to-one matching: Effects of correlation with correct
choice. Animal Learning & Behavior, 18, 410–422.
Urcuioli, P. J. (1990b). Some relationships between out-
come expectancies and sample stimuli in pigeons’ de-
layed matching. Animal Learning & Behavior, 18, 302–
314.
Urcuioli, P. J. (1991). Retardation and facilitation of
matching acquisition by differential outcomes. Animal
Learning & Behavior, 19, 29–36.
Urcuioli, P. J. (1996). Acquired equivalences and medi-
ated generalization in pigeons’ matching-to-sample.
In T. R. Zentall & P. M. Smeets (Eds.), Stimulus class
formation in humans and animals (pp. 55–70). New
York: Elsevier.
Urcuioli, P. J., & DeMarse, T. B. (1994). On the rela-
tionship between differential outcomes and differen-
tial sample responding in matching-to-sample. Journal
of the Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,
20, 249–263.
Urcuioli, P. J., & DeMarse, T. B. (1996). Associative pro-
cesses in differential outcome discriminations. Journal
of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 22,
192–204.
Urcuioli, P. J., & DeMarse, T. B. (1997). Memory pro-
cesses in delayed spatial discriminations: Response in-
tentions or response mediation? Journal of the Experi-
mental Analysis of Behavior, 67, 323–336.
Urcuioli, P. J., & Honig, W. K. (1980). Control of choice
in conditional discriminations by sample-specific be-
haviors. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Be-
havior Processes, 6, 251–277.
Urcuioli, P. J., & Zentall, T. R. (1986). Retrospective cod-
ing in pigeons’ delayed matching. Journal of Experimen-
tal Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 12, 69–77.
Urcuioli, P. J., & Zentall, T. R. (1990). On the role of
trial outcomes in delayed discriminations. Animal
Learning & Behavior, 18, 141–150.
Urcuioli, P. J., Zentall, T. R., & DeMarse, T. (1995).
Transfer to derived sample-comparison relations by
pigeons following many-to-one and one-to-many
matching with identical training relations. Quarterly
Journal of Experimental Psychology, 48B, 158–178.
 DURATION PREDICTABILITY
Urcuioli, P. J., Zentall, T. R., Jackson-Smith, P., & Steirn,
J. N. (1989). Evidence for common coding in many-
to-one matching: Retention, intertrial interference,
and transfer. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal
Behavior Processes, 15, 264–273.
Warren, J. M. (1953). Additivity of cues in visual pattern
discrimination by monkeys. Journal of Comparative and
Physiological Psychology, 46, 484–486.
Wasserman, E. A., deVolder, C. L., & Coppage, D. J.
(1992). Nonsimilarity-based conceptualization in pi-
geons. Psychological Science, 3, 374–379.
297
Wasserman, E. A., Grosch, J., & Nevin, J. A. (1982). Ef-
fects of signaled retention intervals on pigeon short-
term memory. Animal Learning & Behavior, 10, 330–
338.
Wixted, J. T. (1989). Nonhuman short-term memory: A
quantitative reanalysis of selected findings. Journal of
the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 52, 409–426.
Zentall, T. R. (1997). Animal memory: The role of ‘‘in-
structions.’’ Learning and Motivation, 28, 280–308.
Received February 4, 1999
Final acceptance July 7, 1999