Differential inhibition and stimulus generalization cannot account for value transfer in simultaneous discrimination learning by pigeons: Reply to Aitken

Abstract

Aitken (1999) argues that, in a simultaneous discrimination, reports of the transfer of value from the positive to the negative stimulus can be more readily explained in terms of an artifact produced by the procedure in which differential inhibition accrues to the negative test stimuli during training, together with stimulus generalization (similarity between the positive and negative stimuli). We argue that (1) there is little evidence for differential inhibition, and it often occurs in the wrong direction; (2) value transfer can be demonstrated when differential value is established to the positive stimuli afterdiscrimination training, when differential inhibition is not likely to be a factor; and (3) on both logical and empirical grounds, stimulus similarity does not provide an adequate account of the transfer of value from the positive to the negative stimulus (i.e., the strongest evidence for value transfer occurs when there is least stimulus similarity). We propose that value transfer occurs whenever there is relatively little experience with the negative stimuli. However, when there is extended experience with the negative stimuli, contrast will be found.