Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 16, 2026

Testing for Metacognitive Responding Using an Odor-based Delayed Match-to-Sample Test in Rats
Published on: June 18, 2018
Resistance to change of forgetting functions and response rates
Amy L Odum1, Timothy A Shahan, John A Nevin
1Department of Psychology, Utah State University, Logan, Utah 84322, USA. Amy.Odum@usu.edu
Abstract:
This experiment examined the effects of reinforcement probability on resistance to change of remembering and response rate. Pigeons responded on a two-component multiple schedule in which completion of a variable-interval 20-s schedule produced delayed matching-to-sample trials in both components. Each session included four delays (0.1 s, 2 s, 4 s, and 8 s) between sample termination and presentation of comparison stimuli in both components. The two components differed in the probability of reinforcement arranged for correct matches (i.e., rich, p = .9; lean, p = .1). Response rates during the variable-interval portion of the procedure were higher in the rich component during baseline and more resistant to the disruptive effects of intercomponent food and extinction. Forgetting functions were constructed by examining matching accuracy as a function of delay duration. Baseline accuracy was higher in the rich component than in the lean component as measured by differences in the gamma-intercept of the forgetting functions (i.e., initial discrimination), rather than from differences in the slope of the forgetting function (i.e., rate of forgetting). Intercomponent food increased the rate of forgetting relatively more in the lean component than in the rich component, but initial discrimination was not systematically affected. Extinction reduced initial discrimination relatively more in the lean component than in the rich component, but did not systematically affect rate of forgetting. These results are consistent with our previous data suggesting that, as for response rate, accuracy and resistance to change of discriminating are positively related to rate of reinforcement. These data also suggest that the disruptability of remembering depends on the conditions of reinforcement, but the way in which remembering is disrupted depends on the nature of the disruptor.
More Related Videos
07:26The Deese-Roediger-McDermott (DRM) Task: A Simple Cognitive Paradigm to Investigate False Memories in the Laboratory
Published on: January 31, 2017
07:01Working Memory Training for Older Participants: A Control Group Training Regimen and Initial Intellectual Functioning Assessment
Published on: September 20, 2020
Related Concept Videos
Interference and Decay
Interference occurs when competing memories hinder the retrieval of particular information. It can be classified into two types: proactive and retroactive interference. Proactive...
Forgetting
Encoding...
Higher Mental Functions of Brain: Learning and Memory
Chunking and Rehearsal in Sensory Memory
Understanding Memory