Constant irrelevant cues and stimulus generalization in monkeys.

Flagg, Steven F.; Medin, Douglas L.

doi:10.1037/h0035033

Cited by 7 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In denying that monkeys and pigeons abstract the elements of a compound sample, the generalization-decrement interpretation concedes less in the way of Complex cognitive processes to these animals than does the shared-attention view, Nevertheless, some confirmation for this more conservative appraisal may be found in other contexts (D'Amato & Fazzaro, 1966;Flagg & Medin, 1973). On the other hand, pigeons are reported to acquire rapidly such natural concepts as trees, bodies of water, a specific person, and even fish (Herrnstein, 1979;Herrnstein, Loveland, & Cable, 1976), which implies that they possess a much greater capacity for abstraction than has been revealed by the more traditional matching studies.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Matching to compound samples by monkeys (Cebus apella): Shared attention or generalization decrement?

Cox¹,

D'Amato²

1982

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In Experiments 1 and 2, cebus monkeys matched element comparison stimuli to either element or color-form compound samples, with retention intervals ranging from ,5 to 32 sec. In both experiments, performance on compound sample trials was substantially below performance on element sample trials at the .5-sec delay, and the retention gradients were essentially parallel. These results were viewed as supporting the generalization-decrement rather than the shared-attention interpretation of how animals process compound samples. Experiment 3 employed form-form rather th'an color-form compounds and obtained the same results with simultaneous matching and delays ranging to 128 sec. Experiment 4 verified the findings of Experiment 3 for both form-form and color-form compounds and showed that as predicted by the generalization-decrement view, when the compound sample served as the correct comparison stimulus, performance was closely comparable to that achieved on element trials. The present results, taken in conjunction with earlier work with pigeons, suggest that pigeons and monkeys do not readily abstract the elements of a compound sample, which seems at odds with the pigeon's reported ability to rapidly form concepts based on natural and artificial categories.In an interesting series of experiments, sion (red vs. green, or vertical vs. horizontal Maki and his associates investigated shared lines), matching behavior was poorer than attention in the pigeon in the context of when the sample stimulus consisted of a sinmatching to sample with element and com-gle element (e.g., red or vertical lines). This pound sample stimuli (Maki & Leith, 1973; difference in performance, which survived Maki & Leuin, 1972; Maki, Riley, & Leith, extensive training with compound and ele-1976). The major result of these studies was ment samples, can be interpreted in a numthat when presented with a compound sam-ber of ways. That favored by Maki and his pie stimulus (e.g., vertical lines superinv associates is that when presented with a composed on a red background) followed by a pound sample of relatively brief duration, choice between the elements of one dimen-the bird must share its attention between the , two available elements and, due to a limited This research, based in part on a master's thesis and information-processing system, neither ele-PhD dissertation of j. K. Cox, was supported by grants ment is processed to the same degree as when from the National Science Foundation. j t occurs alone. These investigators ruled out D'&e^ the mor « ? b y ious and Parsimonious expla-

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Matching to compound samples by monkeys (Cebus apella): Shared attention or generalization decrement?

Cox¹,

D'Amato²

1982

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To observe effects of these conditions on performance, we need to specify some choice rule mapping these generalization tendencies onto choice responses. Choice rules that ignore constant, irrelevant cues (see Flagg & Medin, 1973, for a review) will, of course, predict that Condition A-C will produce performance equivalent to Condition A-A, since the same difference in generalization will be present in each case. Choice rules that take absolute strengths into account, such as rules employing a threshold concept (e.g., Spence, 1956, pp.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Stimulus similarity and retroactive interference and facilitation in monkey short-term memory.

Medin

Reynolds²,

Parkinson³

1980

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Four experiments examined the effects of similarity between the sample and an interpolated stimulus in a modified delayed-matching-to-sample (DMTS) paradigm. The basis trial sequence was as follows: (a) a sample was presented, and the response to it was either rewarded or nonrewarded, (b) an interpolated stimulus was presented, and the response to it was either rewarded or nonrewarded, and (c) after a delay interval a choice test was given between the initial sample and a new stimulus, with the sample being correct if it had been initially rewarded and incorrect if it had been initially nonrewarded. When the sample and the interpolated stimulus were associated with opposite outcomes (sample rewarded, interpolated stimulus not rewarded or sample not rewarded, interpolated stimulus rewarded), retroactive interference was observed to increase as the similarity of the two stimuli increased. When the two stimuli were either both rewarded or both nonrewarded, retroactive facilitation was observed so long as the sample and interpolated stimuli were similar along either the relevant or an irrelevant dimension. Finally, test probes involving the interpolated stimulus and a new stimulus revealed asymmetrical interactions such that the interpolated stimulus influenced performance on the initial stimulus more than the initial stimulus altered performance on the interpolated stimulus. Taken as a whole, the results are inconsistent with the idea that alternative stimuli are encoded independently of each other. At best, independence may hold only for cases in which the stimuli are not similar to each other.

show abstract

“…However, if the strength of, say, a position cue depends upon its context (e.g., whether or not A or B objects or C or D objects cover the foodwell), then the pretraining procedure would fail to place A and B objects at an advantage in comparison to irrelevant cues. There exists direct evidence for the expectation that the various cues are not independent (e.g., Spiker, 1963;Flagg & Medin, 1973), and theories of discrimination learning embodying this assumption have been advanced (Spiker, 1963(Spiker, , 1970Medin, 1973). Spiker's theory represents one way of modifying Hull-Spence discrimination theory to account for the present results.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reward pretraining and discrimination learning set

Medin

1974

Animal Learning & Behavior

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pigtailed monkeys were trained on discrimination problems involving objects that had been previously paired with reward, previously paired with nonreward, or objects not associated with any pretraining. In two separate studies, no differences on these various problem formats were observed, but performance improved considerably with practice. These results are contrary to the theories for learning set formation of Spence and Medin.When monkeys are given a series of object discriminations, their performance on new problems gets better and better. Early in the series, they make many errors but, after extensive practice, learning takes place after just a few errors. A major theoretical problem is to specify the source of improvement in discrimination performance.The present study tests one implication of some theories for learning set formation. The basic procedure involves pairing objects with reward or nonreward during pretraining, followed by discrimination training where two previously rewarded objects are paired and two previously nonrewarded objects are paired. The variable of main interest is the relative rate of learning these two kinds of problems. First, it is in order to review the theories making a clear prediction concerning this paradigm.Although it is certainly not a well-publicized fact, Spence's (1936) original theory of discrimination learning predicts that learning to learn will occur. The most extensive discussion of the application of Spence's theory to learning set is given by Reese (1964). Space does not permit a detailed review of Spence's theory, but it is important to bring out the facets of the theory which underlie improvement on object discriminations. These main factors are: (l) the initial strengths associated with the two objects of a discrimination problem, (2) the difference in these initial strengths, which provides a basis for stimulus preferences, and (3) the difference in strengths of irrelevant cues which must be overcome before a probelm is solved. We shall consider these in turn.Initial strengths alter performance through their influence on the effectiveness of reward and nonreward. The effectiveness of a reward first increases with strength to a maximum and then, for high strengths, decreases once more. The change in strength produced by a nonreward increases linearly with strength. Overall then, changes in strength are greatest when strengths are *This research was supported by United States Public Health Service Grants MH25134 and MH16100.in the middle to high range. When the preferred stimulus is incorrect, stimulus preferences can serve to retard learning. As a consequence, decreases in initial stimulus preferences facilitate learning. Spence's original paper illustrates the influence of irrelevant cues, such as spatial or position habits, on learning. Decreases in these strength differences are also associated with faster learning.To assess predictions of Spence's theory concerning the effects of pretraining with rewards, computer simulations of these pretraining condit...

show abstract

Constant irrelevant cues and stimulus generalization in monkeys.

Cited by 7 publications

References 15 publications

Matching to compound samples by monkeys (Cebus apella): Shared attention or generalization decrement?

Matching to compound samples by monkeys (Cebus apella): Shared attention or generalization decrement?

Stimulus similarity and retroactive interference and facilitation in monkey short-term memory.

Reward pretraining and discrimination learning set

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About