Goldfish, trained in the avoidance shuttlebox with a variant of the linear discrimination procedure, learned to conditionally discriminate between color signals, both for the matching (M) and oddity (0) criterion forms. Transfer to assess the possibility of concept learning was also tested. In original learning, oddity-trained groups learned faster and reached higher conditional discrimination performance levels than did matching-trained groups. In transfer, various groups were tested with the same criterion (MM or 00) or a shifted criterion (MO or OM), and half of each group retained the same color signals and the remaining half had its color signals changed in transfer. Groups with the same criterion in original learning and transfer (MM or 00), regardless of signal colors, showed comparable positive transfer. Groups with their criterion shifted between original learning and transfer (MO or OM) showed comparable negative transfer, regardless of signal colors.

Goldfish, trained in a shuttlebox with cues and shock controlled by a linear presentation procedure, learned to control prevailing cue states and shock, and thus to discriminatively avoid shock presentation. The linear presentation procedure, adapted for the shuttlebox from the sequence of cue presentation occurring in the Y-maze, utilized three cues on each trial, a trial-start (TS) cue, a shock-paired (8-) cue, and an unpaired (S+) cue. At trial onset (TS cue), the goldfish had 10 sec to respond. The first response produced, via response-contingent programming, either the shock-paired (8-) or unpaired (S+) cue, and subsequent responses produced alternation of S+ and S-. The shock was omitted only if the S+ cue state prevailed 10 sec after trial onset. All other cue states were paired with shock. Goldfish learned to respond and control the prevailing cue state so that the S+ cue prevailed at 10 sec posttrial onset for a variety of different color-cue combinations and also learned to reverse their originally learned cue preference when the color cues were reversed. The linear presentation procedure represents an alternative discrimination learning procedure that appears to be free of the interpretational problems encountered in training goldfish in the shuttlebox apparatus with other one-and two-stimulus procedures.Can goldfish learn a discriminated avoidance response in the shuttlebox? The question has stirred a bit of controversy. To understand the question and the problem posed by the goldfish's behavior, one must understand what an avoidance response is in the shuttlebox and, more importantly, how it is measured.The typical discriminated avoidance procedure in the shuttlebox involves presenting a signal cue for a timed period and programming shock to occur at the end of the timed period unless the animal meets a specific response requirement. If the animal meets the response requirement in the timed period, the shock is omitted. Because shock omission is contingent upon the animal's response, the procedure is, by definition, an instrumental procedure. If the animal "learns" to avoid, it will respond in an increasing proportion of the timed periods. The learning measure is the incidence (i.e., the probability of responding) in the timed periods. It is tacitly assumed that the animal will not respond in an increasing proportion of timed periods unless it is compelled to do so by shock. Another way of saying this is to say that the animal is expected to habituate responding (i.e., not shuttle) in procedures that do not involve shock. It is only when the "habituated" response and the "learned" response can be clearly separated by the learning measure that an unequivocal learning interpretation can be given. With these distinctions and assumptions in mind, we can proceed to the results of running goldfish in the shuttlebox and to the implications of previous studies.The discriminated avoidance work employing goldfish in the shuttlebox can be conveniently divided into three procedural types, which are distingui...

This classroom technique uses imaginary marbles, chips, and bags to create distributions of sample means, differences between independent sample means, mean difference scores, and raw score populations. With this technique, students more easily grasp the distinctions between raw score populations and sampling distributions, With these distinctions established, the need for different measures of variability for each distribution becomes apparent. Then, solutions for the probabilities of specific observations for each sampling distribution are easily generalized from the raw score model. Once students learn to answer probability questions for each sampling distribution, generalizing to hypothesis testing procedures is facilitated. The technique requires only the instructor's flair for the dramatic and the students' imagination to make it work.

No abstract

No abstract