Children's performance on dimension-abstracted oddity problems.

Lubker, Bonnie J.; Small, Melinda Y.

doi:10.1037/h0026807

Cited by 9 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Finally, it will be useful to comment on the value of developing a series of oddity and DAO tasks that vary systematically in difficulty. There is evidence to suggest that human performances on such tasks vary with age (from young children to elderly adults) and experience (e.g., Lubker & Small, 1969;Strong et al, 1968;Sugimura, 1981) a.nd that, generally, DAO tasks are more difficult than oddity tasks for both human and nonhuman primates. Further, as noted earlier, oddity and DAO are heavily involved in the Halstead Category Test, one of the most reliable instruments for detecting human brain damage.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Thomas and Frost (1983), suggesting a more general definition than Bernstein's, stated that the :; difference between oddity and DAO is that the nonodd stimuli in oddity problems are identical, whereas the nonodd stimuli in DAO tasks are not identical but share more properties with each other than they do with the odd stimulus. Dimension-abstracted oddity has also been used to test conceptual ability in human and nonhu-man animals (Lubker & Small, 1969;Strong, Drash, & Hedges, 1968;Sugimura, 1981). The ability to respond to oddity conceptually has been demonstrated in a number of nonhuman primates (e.g., Meyer & Harlow, 1949;Strong & Hedges, 1966;Thomas & Boyd, 1973).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Oddity and Dimension-Abstracted Oddity (DAO) in Humans

Noble¹,

Thomas²

1985

The American Journal of Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Six conceptual oddity and dimension-abstracted oddity (DAO) tasks were administered to college students. Hypothetically, the tasks varied in difficulty as functions of the number of relevant, constant, and ambiguous cues, and the research investigated whether performance was related to the hypothesized difficulty (with Task 1 being easiest and Task 6 most difficult). Tasks 5 and 6 required significantly more trials to criterion than Tasks 1 through 4, and Task 4 required more trials than Tasks 1 and 2. Additionally, response latency was significantly longer on Task 6 than on Tasks 2 and 3, and on Task 5 than on Tasks 2, 3, and 4. Discussion considers differences between humans and squirrel monkeys in the order of difficulty of the six tasks as a function of trichromatic versus protonomalous and dichromatic color vision, and the use of the task hierarchy for ontogenetic and phylogenetic comparisons.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%