A study of the continuity of the problem-solving process.

Krechevsky, I.

doi:10.1037/h0056641

Cited by 131 publications

(92 citation statements)

References 6 publications

(7 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The AL theory views all judgments as relative, implying that the subject has no knowledge of the absolute values of the training stimuli, whereas TSD presumes no knowledge of their relative values. A parallel exists in the province of animal discrimination learning, where Spence (1937) claimed that learning was always absolute and Krechevsky (1938) proposed that it was always relative. Premack (1978) has recently argued that animals may learn both the absolute and relative attributes of the training stimuli, with the emphasis on one or the other depending upon the species, the test conditions, the stimulus dimension, and a host of other factors.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Stimulus presentation frequency in brightness discrimination and generalization: A test of adaptation-level and signal-detection interpretations

Thomas

Windell

Williams

et al. 1985

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In Experiment 1, brightness discriminations were established under conditions in which the stimulus to which "same" responses were required (S+) was presented more frequently than the stimulus to which "different" responses were made (S-), S+ and S-were presented equally often, or S-was more frequent than S+. Subsequent generalization gradients along the brightness dimension were shifted away from the stimulus value more frequently presented during training. In Experiment 2, brightness discriminations were established under conditions of equally frequent presentations of S+ and S-stimuli in training, but in subsequent generalization testing S+ and S-values were equally represented or overrepresented relative to presentations of other test stimuli. Generalization gradients shifted towards the overrepresented stimulus value, relative to gradients obtained for equal presentation-frequency conditions. The shift in gradients away from the more frequently presented stimulus during training in Experiment 1 was consistent with accounts of stimulus generalization based on both adaptation-level theory and signal-detection theory. The shift in gradients towards the more frequently presented stimulus during testing in Experiment 2, however, was consistent with adaptation-level theory, whereas the signaldetection account had predicted a shift in the opposite direction. These results attest to the importance of relative stimulus presentation frequency as a determinant of postdiscrimination stimulus generalization performance. Because feedback was given only during training, the opposite effects of presentation probability in training and testing may reflect an interaction between presentation probability and feedback.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Stimulus presentation frequency in brightness discrimination and generalization: A test of adaptation-level and signal-detection interpretations

Thomas

Windell

Williams

et al. 1985

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…First, it is assumed that S + and S -are encoded relative to an AL value (S = AL ± x ), Second, the peak shift can only be understood in relation to the AL of the generalization test series. This latter point is unique to the AL position, since neither the absolute view of Spence (1937) nor the relational view of Krechevsky (1938) takes into account the composition of the generalization test series. Thomas et al (1973) tested their hypothesis in an experiment with adult human subjects, the brightness continuum, and three different magnitudes of S + SI difference.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Specifically, a peak shift such as predicted by Spence's theory would result if discrimination training caused the criterion on the S -side of S + to be moved toward S + and had little effect on the opposite criterion. This would mean that stimuli just to the opposite side of S + from S -would be more likely to produce a discriminal process that would be interpreted as S + than those on the S -side or the S + value itself.Historically, the alternative to "absolute" approaches such as Spence's has been the relational view of Krechevsky (1938). According to this view, the subject solves the discrimination problem relationally by learning to respond to the larger (or smaller), the brighter (or dimmer), etc., of the training stimuli.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Two determinants of the peak shift in human voluntary stimulus generalization

Newlin

Rodgers

Thomas

1979

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two hundred and forty college students were divided into two groups, with training stimuli (from the brightness dimension) selected to produce small and large adaptation level shifts between discrimination training (to respond "same" to S+ and "different" to S-)and generalization testing. These were further divided into three groups with discriminations expected to yield positive (toward brighter values), negative (toward dimmer values), or zero postdiscrimination peak shifts. Half the subjects received brief discrimination training while half received extended training. A further group of 60 subjects were given exposure to the stimuli comparable to that of the extended training subjects, but were asked to rate the stimuli instead of being given discrimination training. The results indicated that two independent, additive sources of shift were active. One source, occurring in all groups, was interpreted as being due to the change in adaptation level from training to test. The other source of shift, occurring only in the groups with extended discrimination training, was interpreted as due to the establishment of asymmetrical decision criteria; the more traditional interpretation in terms of the interaction between excitatory and inhibitory gradients of response strength was also considered. 478One of the most robust findings in the study of discrimination learning is that of the peak shift in postdiscrimination stimulus generalization. Following acquisition of a successive discrimination between two stimulus values closely spaced on the same continuum, the peak (i.e., the point of maximal responding) is displaced from the S + to a value farther removed from the S -. This peak shift has been observed in several infrahuman species, as well as in children and adult humans, along several different stimulus dimensions, including wavelength, brightness, and line angle (cf. Purtle, 1973). The peak shift, at least in animals, has been most commonly interpreted in terms of Spence's (1937) theory, according to which response strength to any stimulus is a consequence of the summation of generalized excitatory strength from S + and inhibitory strength from S -.A more recent interpretation of generalization gradients involves the application of statistical decision theory (Boneau & Cole, 1967). According to this approach, any given physical stimulus produces a subjective experience (within the organism) called a discriminal process. Because the discriminal process is variable, repeated presentations of the same physical stimulus generate a discriminal distribution. The subject must then establish a criterion (or criteria) which defines a range of the discriminal distribution that the subject will attribute to a particular stimulus. Blough (1969) has shown that peaked generalization gradients would be found if instructions (for human subjects) or single-stimulus training (for animal subjects) caused them to create two symmetrical response criteria around the mean discriminal process produced by the training stimulus. Blough al...

show abstract

“…The historical origins of the contemporary approaches are the noncontinuity positions of Lashley and Wade (1946) and Krechevsky (1938), and in particular that of Lawrence (1950Lawrence ( , 1952. The essential feature of attentional theories of animal discrimination is that such learning involves two separate processes: learning to attend to the relevant stimulus dimension and learning which responses to attach to specific cue values on the relevant dimension.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Performance of rhesus monkeys on two-cue problems with cues separated

Behar

1974

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Relative performance on color and form dimensions during acquisition of two-cue problems by learning-set-sophisticated rhesus monkeys was evaluated with differential reinforcement. Six animals received 24 two-choice problems, each generated from three planometric stimuli: a reference stimulus, an alternate stimulus identical in color bu t differing in form, and one identical in form but differing in color. The reference stimulus appeared on every trial of a problem and was paired with one or the other alternate on a given trial. On half of the problems, the reference stimulus was positive and on the remainder was negative. Acquisition was nearly equivalent on both cue dimensions with positive reference stimuli, but only one dimension was learned with negative reference stimuli. Results were interpreted as unfavorable to attention theory.

show abstract

A study of the continuity of the problem-solving process.

Cited by 131 publications

References 6 publications

Stimulus presentation frequency in brightness discrimination and generalization: A test of adaptation-level and signal-detection interpretations

Stimulus presentation frequency in brightness discrimination and generalization: A test of adaptation-level and signal-detection interpretations

Two determinants of the peak shift in human voluntary stimulus generalization

Performance of rhesus monkeys on two-cue problems with cues separated

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About