Differential first-trial procedures and discrimination learning performance.

Aj, Riopelle; Ew, Francisco; Hw, Ades

doi:10.1037/h0054078

Cited by 16 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…They reached opposite conclusions but agreed that the first outcome affects subsequent learning. Studies focused on individual learning demonstrated that humans, monkeys, cats, and pigeons learn best from (their own) successes (Riopelle et al, 1954; Riopelle, 1955, 1960; Warren, 1959; Mishkin, 1964; Itoh et al, 2001; van Duijvenvoorde et al, 2008; Cook and Fagot, 2009). Studies focused on social learning showed that macaques and birds learn best from (others’) errors (Darby and Riopelle, 1959; Templeton, 1998; see also Vanayan et al, 1985; Biederman and Vanayan, 1988).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Early authors (Riopelle et al, 1954; Mishkin, 1964) assumed that first-trial personal choices are dictated by preexisting attractions to one object that subsequently ease or retard individual learning depending on whether the attractive object happens to be positive or negative. Our reasoning for individual learning is similar except that we do not postulate that a spontaneous preference preexists in each subject for each and every possible pair of objects.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Faced with two equally neutral objects, one leading to a reward, the other not, individuals from several species (rhesus monkeys: Riopelle et al, 1954; Riopelle, 1955, 1960; Itoh et al, 2001; cats: Warren, 1959; humans: van Duijvenvoorde et al, 2008; baboons and pigeons: Cook and Fagot, 2009) are far less likely to learn if they happen to select the negative object during their initial choice than when they initially pick the positive object. When the initial choice proves incorrect, choice-induced attraction for the negative item considerably slows subsequent learning.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Social Learning as a Way to Overcome Choice-Induced Preferences? Insights from Humans and Rhesus Macaques

Monfardini¹,

Gaveau²,

Boussaoud³

et al. 2012

Front. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Much theoretical attention is currently devoted to social learning. Yet, empirical studies formally comparing its effectiveness relative to individual learning are rare. Here, we focus on free choice, which is at the heart of individual reward-based learning, but absent in social learning. Choosing among two equally valued options is known to create a preference for the selected option in both humans and monkeys. We thus surmised that social learning should be more helpful when choice-induced preferences retard individual learning than when they optimize it. To test this prediction, the same task requiring to find which among two items concealed a reward was applied to rhesus macaques and humans. The initial trial was individual or social, rewarded or unrewarded. Learning was assessed on the second trial. Choice-induced preference strongly affected individual learning. Monkeys and humans performed much more poorly after an initial negative choice than after an initial positive choice. Comparison with social learning verified our prediction. For negative outcome, social learning surpassed or at least equaled individual learning in all subjects. For positive outcome, the predicted superiority of individual learning did occur in a majority of subjects (5/6 monkeys and 6/12 humans). A minority kept learning better socially though, perhaps due to a more dominant/aggressive attitude toward peers. Poor learning from errors due to over-valuation of personal choices is among the decision-making biases shared by humans and animals. The present study suggests that choice-immune social learning may help curbing this potentially harmful tendency. Learning from successes is an easier path. The present data suggest that whether one tends to walk it alone or with a peer’s help might depend on the social dynamics within the actor/observer dyad.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Social Learning as a Way to Overcome Choice-Induced Preferences? Insights from Humans and Rhesus Macaques

Monfardini¹,

Gaveau²,

Boussaoud³

et al. 2012

Front. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In individual learning, subjects from many taxa (humans, monkeys, cats, birds) required to choose between two alternatives, one good, one bad, learn poorly if they happen to err on their first choice [10], [33]–[37]. On the contrary, in social learning, although learning from others’ successes can and do occur, humans, monkeys, and birds, all draw the most substantial and reliable benefit from others’ errors [7], [10], [38].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Model-Observer Similarity, Error Modeling and Social Learning in Rhesus Macaques

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Monkeys readily learn to discriminate between rewarded and unrewarded items or actions by observing their conspecifics. However, they do not systematically learn from humans. Understanding what makes human-to-monkey transmission of knowledge work or fail could help identify mediators and moderators of social learning that operate regardless of language or culture, and transcend inter-species differences. Do monkeys fail to learn when human models show a behavior too dissimilar from the animals’ own, or when they show a faultless performance devoid of error? To address this question, six rhesus macaques trained to find which object within a pair concealed a food reward were successively tested with three models: a familiar conspecific, a ‘stimulus-enhancing’ human actively drawing the animal’s attention to one object of the pair without actually performing the task, and a ‘monkey-like’ human performing the task in the same way as the monkey model did. Reward was manipulated to ensure that all models showed equal proportions of errors and successes. The ‘monkey-like’ human model improved the animals’ subsequent object discrimination learning as much as a conspecific did, whereas the ‘stimulus-enhancing’ human model tended on the contrary to retard learning. Modeling errors rather than successes optimized learning from the monkey and ‘monkey-like’ models, while exacerbating the adverse effect of the ‘stimulus-enhancing’ model. These findings identify error modeling as a moderator of social learning in monkeys that amplifies the models’ influence, whether beneficial or detrimental. By contrast, model-observer similarity in behavior emerged as a mediator of social learning, that is, a prerequisite for a model to work in the first place. The latter finding suggests that, as preverbal infants, macaques need to perceive the model as ‘like-me’ and that, once this condition is fulfilled, any agent can become an effective model.

show abstract

“…The present results are not in accord with this implication, but they can be explained by the fact chat with simultaneous presentation of stimulus objects, Ss' object preferences (Harlow & Hicks, 1957) are not ruled out. Supporting evidence is offered by Riopelle, Francisco, and Ades (1954) who found that only in the early stages of LS formation does rewarding the first trial lead to better Trial 2 performance. Thus, the advantage of being correct on Trial 1 in the present study probably would have disappeared had training continued.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 87%

Response-Contingent Learning-Set Training in the Squirrel Monkey

Abordo

Rumbaugh

1965

Psychol Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sz~mmary.-Two groups of squirrel monkeys, Saimiri sciureris, were trained in learning set (LS) ro determine the effect of making the stimulus objects' rightleft position assignments contingent upon Ss' responses. In the first group, objects were assigned according to a random sequence, but in the second group the position of objects was conticgent upon the nature of the preceding response. For this latter group, the right-left position assignments changed on each trial that followed a correct and reinforced trial; on all other trials the assignments remained unchanged. In subsequert test problems in which position assignments for both groups were on a random basis, the group that had its initial training in the response-contingent LS condition was significantly superior ( F = 16.7, 9 < .01).Results were interpreted in accord with the logic that the response-contingent method served to efficiently suppress the differential cue error factor.In discrimination learning set (LS) experimencs, the right-lefc position assignments for stimulus objects typically follow some predetermined sequence unrelated to Ss' responses. The purpose of che present experiment was co study the effects of making such assignmencs systematically contingent upon S's response on the preceding trial, excludicg, of course, Trial 1.According to Harlow ( 1959), LS is acquired through the ordered suppression of certain inappropriate reaction tendencies or error factors (EFs), identified as stirn~~lus perseveration, differential cue, response shift, and position preference. Differential cue error, of particular relevance to the present srudy, refers co the concurrent, hence ambiguous, reinforcement of boch the position and stimulus chosen on any given trial (Spence, 1936). Braun, Patton, and Barnes ( 1952), Davis, McDowell, andThorson ( 1953), andHarlow ( 1950) have shown that EF is a function of the number of trials preceding the differential cue trial ( D C T ) , the first trial on which che stimuli change their positions. Ostensibly, then, assigning objecc positions in such a way as to minimize the number of s~~ccessive trials on which ambiguous reinforcement occurs should lead to a faster rate of error suppression and, consequently, to Inore rapid LS formation.T h e following experiment was conducted to test this hypothesis. T w o groups of Ss were compare;. One group received conventional training in which the objeccs' right-left positioning followed a random sequence. The second group received response-contingent training defined as the systematic variation of object position from crial to trial in a manner contingent upon the response made by S

show abstract

Differential first-trial procedures and discrimination learning performance.

Cited by 16 publications

References 5 publications

Social Learning as a Way to Overcome Choice-Induced Preferences? Insights from Humans and Rhesus Macaques

Social Learning as a Way to Overcome Choice-Induced Preferences? Insights from Humans and Rhesus Macaques

Model-Observer Similarity, Error Modeling and Social Learning in Rhesus Macaques

Response-Contingent Learning-Set Training in the Squirrel Monkey

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About