A previous study showed that a distinctive conditioned stimulus (CS) presented on the first trial of acquisition generated more responses after extinction than another CS presented regularly during acquisition. In this study all subjects were presented with a different distinctive CS on each first trial of 5 acquisition sessions. Subjects were then broken down into 7 groups which were tested, following extinction, for residual response strength of ( a) Day 1 novel CS; (b) Day 2 novel CS; (c) Day 3 novel CS; (d) Day 4 novel CS; (e) Day 5 novel CS; (/) the regular CS; and (g) a novel CS never presented before. Contrary to the previous study where a novel CS inhibited responding, Group 7 exhibited the most responding in this study. The results support a concept formation interpretation of the previous study and are difficult to explain from a "stimulus trace" or "identical elements" position.In a recent study (Burstein & Moeser, 1971), it was found that a distinctive stimulus regularly associated with the first trial of a series of acquisition trials generated more response strength when presented on a test trial following extinction than did another stimulus presented more frequently during the acquisition phase of the experiment. Specifically, for each of 5 daily acquisition sessions of 30 trials, different groups of pigeons were presented with a novel stimulus (a red conditioned stimulus, CS) on either Training Trial 1 or 20 or not at all. For all other acquisition trials, the CS was green. All responses on all trials were reinforced with 3-sec. access to a tray of Purina pigeon pellets. On Day 6, all subjects were extinguished on the "regular" green CS. Subjects were then placed in their home cages for 20 min. after which they were returned to the operant chamber and tested for residual response strength to either the distinctive red CS or the regular green CS.No significant differences were obtained in total test-trial responses of groups tested
William James attempted to refute automaton theory with the claim that consciousness is efficacious because it is selective, and selective because it possesses many varied and irreducible interests. But James's theory contains several major weaknesses. He never satisfactorily defined the interests in terms of their psychogenetic origins nor did he give them an explicit structure within consciousness itself. Therefore the evidence for the existence of interests may be no more than an empirical abstraction from the fact that any particular action is performed. From another viewpoint, the organism may behave as if it were interested but the interests themselves may have only an epiphenomenal status as mere “attachments” to a biologically determined organism, as part of the consciousness of conscious automata. The weakness of James's interest theory is important as an early example of the same flaw that occurs in many of his later and more systematic theories.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.