Comparing negative patterning and biconditional discrimination in a simulated foraging task

How humans solve patterning and biconditional discrimination is a topic of continued theoretical debate. Some theories assume that solving negative patterning of A+, B+, AB0 is contingent upon learning to associate outcomes with individual stimuli, whereas others assume the addition of a unique configuration of the compound is needed to solve it. Research in humans has found evidence to support both theories. However, a problem with human associative learning experiments is the use of arbitrary reinforcement stimuli, which may cause humans to use rule-based learning rather than associative learning. This paper reports a study of patterning and biconditional discrimination that uses a novel simulated foraging task in which all trials involve stimulus compounds to provide a clearer test of the competing theories.M.A.Includes bibliographical referencesby Phillip A. Loatma