Further experiments on computer-aided learning of sound identification.

Swets, John A.; Harris, Judith Rich; McElroy, Linda S.; Rudloe, Harry

doi:10.1037/e431862004-001

Cited by 5 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The various kinds oi feedback 16 NAVTRADEVCEN 4119-1 required the subject to type the five numbers he believed identified the sound before being given feedback. A further experimert (Swets, Harris, McElroy and Rudloe, 1964) allowed subjects to choose between training methods for each trial, and the results supported the conclusions of the first experiment. Success was positively corielated with time spent on simple response to sound-label pairs and was negatively correlated with the proportion of time spent in active responding, receiving feedback and making second tri.es.…”

supporting

confidence: 71%

“…A follow-up experiment by Swets, Harris, McElroy and Rudloe (1964) allowing the subject control of the course of training produced no better performance than when the experimenter determined the course of the lesson. It is hardly surprising that subjects would not know how best to train themselves for complex auditory discriminations.…”

Section: Navtradevcen 4119-1mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Swets et al(SwetE, 196Z;Swets, Harris, McElroy and Rudloe, 1964) used five -dimensional signals in experiments comparing various training methods. The amount of learning cannot be judged as pre-test levels are not given, but differences between groups on the post-test show that the treatments have had differential effects on performance.…”

Section: Z 3 Complex Stimulimentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although several hours training were given perhaps it is not surprising that correct identification rates were low since large numbers of stimuli had each to be given absolute identifications. Short periods of training may be useful tor estimating the effectiveness of various training methods but in this case the training was required to accomplish rather a lot in rather a short time.A follow-up experiment by Swets, Harris, McElroy and Rudloe (1964) allowing the subject control of the course of training produced no better performance than when the experimenter determined the course of the lesson. It is hardly surprising that subjects would not know how best to train themselves for complex auditory discriminations.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

The Use of Cuing in Training Tasks: Phase 2

Annett¹,

Paterson²

1966

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The report falls into three sections, a review of the literature on training for auditory tasks, an account of three experiments comparing ouing and knowledge of results as training techniques for a detection task, and the comparison of cuing and knowledge of results in an intensity discrimination task.The review of the literature indicates some disagreement on the kind and amount of improvement in simple auditory tasks. Some improvement is undoubtedly due to familiarisation with the mechanics of listening and responding.Some may be due to changes in response criterion and some may be due to a genuine sensitisation to the auditory signals.The variety of techniques and performance measures does not facilitate straight-forward generalisation, although it is reasonably clear that some kindsof training can be effective.Investigating a previous finding that cuing and knowledge of reoults affect response criterion differently, the subjects in a detection task were required to respond with three degrees of confidence.It was found that subjective confidence is not affected by training, but knowledge of results still produced more "risky" behaviour than cuing as defined by the distribution of detections and false positive responses.Investigating the hypothesis that this difference was due to the necessarily higher rate of responding in knowledge of results an experimentally controlled rate of responding reduced the difference but did not eliminate it.A "cuing" procedure with no signal presented atall led to performance similar to that under "genuine" cuing, suggesting that in this task signal distribution is primarily what is learned and not, as had been hypothesized, the nature of the signal.Post-training vigilance performance appeared not to differ for the two techniques.In fact neither group showed significant changes in detection or false positives over a half hour vigilance OOSSirY±.In the third section cuing, knowledge of results and reduced noise were compared in training intensity discrimination.In this case knowledge of results was effective, the other techniques not leading to improvement over five one-hour sessions.As in the detection task, however, cuing and knowledge of results were distinguished by increasing cautinn and increasing confidence respectively following training.Reproduction of this publication in whole or irn pai1: is permitted for any purpose of the United States Government. One of the critical needs of the Navy is to determine the "tr;ainable factors" in sonar and to learn how to optimally conduct such training.This study is the second phase of such an on-going program of oxperimentation. It is concerned primarily with the techniques of cuing and knowledge of results (KR) on a range of auditory detection and discrimination tasks.In the first phase of this program (Annett and Clarkson, 1964), cuing was found to be more effective than KR in an auditory signal detection task. However, in view of the past history of learning theory it seems so unlikely that knowledge of results should turn out to...

show abstract

supporting

confidence: 71%

Section: Navtradevcen 4119-1mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Z 3 Complex Stimulimentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The Use of Cuing in Training Tasks: Phase 2

Annett¹,

Paterson²

1966

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Grubb (1967) has demonstrated the general feasibility of teaching statistics with learner control. Swets et al (1964) found no difference between learner or program control in learning to identify complex auditory stimuli. Hartley (1966), using learning of logarithms as the problem-solving task, also found no differences (although his data are confounded by possible ceiling effects).…”

Section: Rationalementioning

confidence: 79%

Learner control of instructional sequencing within an adaptive tutorial CAI environment

et al. 1978

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The study described in this report was designed to test effects of learner control at the level of instructional sequencing within a self-contained tutorial course, administered 38 a rich instructional environment, preferred for generalizing results of Aptitude by Treatment Interaction (ATI) studies to a real instructional world. The third significant aspect of the current study has been the development of a very useful means to characterize high and low performers with an operationally defined set of criteria that has highlighted the value of discriminant function analyses in instructional research settings. Of great importance is the finding that the particular individuals designated high or low performers differed depending upon the particular instructional tasks. Yet, the phenomenon of high and low performance was consistent across two divisions of the course. High and low performers differed with respect to the usage of options, as well as their Level of Aspiration settings concerning their performance. Research is needed to identify more specifically the taxonomic characteristics of instructional tasks related to student profiles of high and low performers.Another significant finding in our study was that self-assessment can make a significant contribution to instructional management, whether the latter be by students or by the learning system. The next step that should be taken is to use the instructional options based on expectations, as part of the decision-making process in an adaptive instructional environment. A proposed prescriptive use of LOA as an Expectancy Operator is described. Lastly, research requirements for systematic study of levels and types of self-managed learning paradigms are discussed. : I / ~I~ I Division C L__ J t J Fig. 2. COBOL2 prerequisite structure.

show abstract

The first generation of computer-assisted instructional systems: An evaluative review

Gentile¹

1967

AVCR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Further experiments on computer-aided learning of sound identification.

Cited by 5 publications

References 0 publications

The Use of Cuing in Training Tasks: Phase 2

The Use of Cuing in Training Tasks: Phase 2

Learner control of instructional sequencing within an adaptive tutorial CAI environment

The first generation of computer-assisted instructional systems: An evaluative review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About