Enhancing recognition memory in adults through differential outcomes

Plaza, Victoria; Estévez, Ángeles F.; López-Crespo, Ginesa; Fuentes, Luis J.

doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2010.11.001

Cited by 25 publications

(38 citation statements)

References 41 publications

(55 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…To our knowledge, this is the first time that such an effect has been reported in 7-year-old children. Some recent studies have shown that the DOP is effective in improving memory-based performance after short delays in normal aging, in young people, and in patients with alcohol-related amnesia and Alzheimer's disease (Hochhalter et al, 2000;López-Crespo et al, 2009;Martella et al, 2012;Plaza et al, 2011Plaza et al, , 2012. All these results can be explained according to the model suggested by Savage and colleagues (e.g., Overmier, Savage, & Sweeney, 1999;Ramirez, Buzzetti, & Savage, 2005;Savage, 2001;Savage & Parsons, 1997), who proposed that there are two different memory systems that are activated by differential and nondifferential outcomes.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 55%

“…If this is the case, it follows that in those circumstances in which the effect is not obtained (for example, when a task is too easy to perform; e.g., Estévez et al, 2001Estévez et al, , 2007Plaza et al, 2011), this would not need to signify that the DOP is not working. By contrast, it might be that the expectancies of reward or prospective memory of what the upcoming reward will be were activated when differential outcomes are arranged but that a ceiling effect was masking the discriminative learning benefits usually observed under this condition.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In fact, they found that three patients with alcohol-induced amnesia showed significantly better delayed face recognition when differential outcomes were arranged. Later on, the potential of the DOP for aiding human memory has also been evident in four studies conducted with young people (Martella, Plaza, Estévez, & Fuentes, 2012;Plaza, Estévez, López-Crespo, & Fuentes, 2011), with older adults (López-Crespo, Plaza, Fuentes, & Estévez, 2009), and with Alzheimer's disease patients (Plaza, López-Crespo, Antúnez, Fuentes, & Estévez, 2012). In these studies, delayed face recognition performance of participants was improved by pairing each correct response with a specific outcome.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…Given that, as we have already shown, the DOE is not observed when the task is very simple (e.g., Estévez et al, 2001Estévez et al, , 2007Plaza et al, 2011), we decided to increase the difficulty of the discriminative learning task used by Martínez et al (2009) by presenting four comparison stimuli instead of two (for a similar task, see Estévez et al, 2001, Experiment 2).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

The effects of differential outcomes and different types of consequential stimuli on 7-year-old children’s discriminative learning and memory

et al. 2013

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 55%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The effects of differential outcomes and different types of consequential stimuli on 7-year-old children’s discriminative learning and memory

et al. 2013

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Asimismo, estos datos permiten pensar en la posibilidad de utilizar como reforzadores para futuros estudios tickets para una rifa o sorteo final o únicamente reforzadores secundarios (p.e., López-Crespo, Plaza, Fuentes y Mok y Overmier, 2007;Plaza, Estévez, López-Crespo y Fuentes, 2011).…”

Section: Discusión Generalunclassified

Mejora del aprendizaje discriminativo en niños: consecuencias diferenciales y administración manual de diferentes formas de refuerzo

et al. 2016

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Resumen: Diversos estudios han mostrado que el aprendizaje discriminativo puede ser mejorado mediante la asignación de una consecuencia única para cada asociación que ha de ser aprendida (procedimiento de consecuencias diferenciales, PCD). El objetivo de este estudio fue comprobar si el PCD mejoraría el aprendizaje de discriminaciones simbólicas en niños de 5 y 7 años de edad, mediante una tarea de lápiz y papel en la que se usaron diferentes tipos de entrenamiento: 1) administración de reforzadores tras las respuestas correctas (+), 2) retirada de reforzadores tras los errores (-), o 3) una combinación de ambas (+/-). En los Experimentos 1a y 1b se utilizaron reforzadores primarios y secundarios, mientras que en los Experimentos 2a y 2b se utilizaron solo reforzadores primarios. Los participantes mostraron una mejor ejecución en las tareas cuando se administraron consecuencias diferenciales independientemente del tipo de reforzador (primario y secundario o sólo primario) y del tipo de entrenamiento empleado (+, -, o +/-). Estos resultados se suman a los encontrados en estudios previos (Martínez, Estévez, Fuentes y Overmier, 2009; Martínez, Flores, González-Salinas, Fuentes y Estévez, 2013) demostrando, además, que el efecto beneficioso del PCD sobre el aprendizaje discriminativo es independiente del medio por el cual presentamos los estímulos y las consecuencias, lo que facilita su posible utilización en contextos aplicados. Palabras clave: Procedimiento de consecuencias diferenciales; aprendizaje discriminativo; tipos de reforzamiento; niños.Title: Improvement of discriminative learning in children: differential outcomes and manual administration of different types of reinforcement. Abstract: In recent years, several studies have demonstrated that discriminative learning is facilitated when each association to be learned is always followed by a unique outcome. This way of providing outcomes was called the differential outcomes procedure (DOP). The aim of the study reported here was to assess whether the DOP could improve learning of symbolic conditional discriminations in 5-and 7-year-old children when performing a paper-and-pencil task using different types of training in which: 1) reinforcers were given after correct choices (+), 2) reinforcers were withdrawn when errors were made (-), or 3) a combination of both (+/-). In Experiments 1a and 1b secondary reinforcers were used along with primary reinforcers, while in Experiments 2a and 2b only primary reinforcers were used. Participants showed better performance when differential outcomes were arranged regardless of the type of reinforcers (secondary plus primary or only primary) and the different strategies of reinforcement (+, -, or +/-). These results add to those found by Martínez et al. (2009Martínez et al. ( , 2013 and demonstrate that the beneficial effect of the DOP on discriminative learning is also independent of the way in which the stimuli and the outcomes are presented, facilitating its use in applied contexts. Keywords: Differential outcomes pro...

show abstract

Quantifying the effects of the differential outcomes procedure in humans: A systematic review and a meta‐analysis

McCormack

Elliffe

Virués‐Ortega

2019

J of App Behav Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We present a systematic review and a meta‐analysis comparing the differential outcomes procedure to a nondifferential outcomes procedure among clinical and nonclinical populations. Sixty distinct experiments were included in the systematic review, 43 of which were included in the meta‐analysis. We calculated pooled effect sizes for accuracy (overall accuracy, test accuracy, transfer accuracy) and acquisition outcomes (latency, errors, and trials to mastery). The meta‐analysis revealed significant medium‐to‐large effect sizes for all three accuracy measures (pooled effect size range, 0.57 to 1.30). We found relatively greater effect sizes among clinical populations (effect size = 1.04). The single‐subject experimental literature included in the systematic review was consistent with the findings from the group studies, demonstrating improvements in accuracy and speed of learning for the majority of participants. Moderator and subgroup analyses suggest that discrimination difficulty may induce relatively larger differential outcomes effects. The results indicate that the differential outcomes procedure can be a valuable addition to reinforcement‐based interventions.

show abstract

Enhancing recognition memory in adults through differential outcomes

Cited by 25 publications

References 41 publications

The effects of differential outcomes and different types of consequential stimuli on 7-year-old children’s discriminative learning and memory

The effects of differential outcomes and different types of consequential stimuli on 7-year-old children’s discriminative learning and memory

Mejora del aprendizaje discriminativo en niños: consecuencias diferenciales y administración manual de diferentes formas de refuerzo

Quantifying the effects of the differential outcomes procedure in humans: A systematic review and a meta‐analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About