Generalization gradients around stimuli associated with different reinforcement schedules.

Guttman, Norman

doi:10.1037/h0045679

Cited by 67 publications

(72 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…While the overall rate of responding to S+ and S-is declining, the decrease in responding to S-is relatively greater than to S+, such that the S+/S-ratio actually increases (Smith & Hoy, 1954;Gollub & Urban, 1958;McCroskery, 1972). This same kind of phenomenon has been reported with stimulus generalization testing (Guttman, 1959;Thomas, 1962;Friedman & Guttman, 1965). In addition to providing further evidence for this enhancement of differential performance, the present experiments were designed to investigate the effects of stimulus alternations on extinguishing a discrimination and relate them to stimulus generalization testing in extinction.…”

supporting

confidence: 50%

Effects of stimulus alternations on extinguishing a discrimination

McCroskery

Olsen

Wallace

1973

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rats were trained in a light ON vs light OFF discrimination in operant chambers with food reinforcement. Following acquisition, extinction under conditions of no alternations between S+ and S-and under conditions of numerous alternations between S+ and S-were examined. In Experiment I, extinction in S+ or S-alone produced less responding to S+ and more responding to S-than extinction with regular alternations between S+ and S-. In Experiment II, 9, 39, or 79 alternations in extinction between S+ and S-produced no differences in responding. These results indicate that during extinction of a discrimination there is (a) sharpening of differential performance, (b) a difference between multiple-and single-stimulusprocedures, and (c) little effect of different numbers of alternations.Extinguishing a discrimination refers to discontinued reinforcement of S+ responding following differential training to S+ (reinforced stimulus) and S-(nonreinforced stimulus). Procedurally, then, the typical postdiscrimination stimulus generalization test is a form of extinguishing a discrimination, with the added feature that new test stimuli along the training dimension as well as S+ and S-are presented. Stimulus generalization is tested in extinction so as to exclude the effects of reinforcement and thereby obtain a "purer" assessment of stimulus control; however, the effects of nonreinforcement must also be taken into account. One striking feature of extinguishing a discrimination that has been noted is the increase in differential performance over that of acquisition. While the overall rate of responding to S+ and S-is declining, the decrease in responding to S-is relatively greater than to S+, such that the S+/S-ratio actually increases (Smith

show abstract

supporting

confidence: 50%

Effects of stimulus alternations on extinguishing a discrimination

McCroskery

Olsen

Wallace

1973

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This would account for the increase in choice slope over schedule slope. Note that Guttman's (1959) proposal of inhibitory effects comes not from an examination of his schedule results, but from the outcome of a transfer procedure, and the same is true for Weisman (1969) and ourselves. The choice procedure may provide a method for the future quantification of the proposed inhibitory effect.…”

Section: Choice Responding 291mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A proposal made by Guttman (1959) would account for the fact that the choice slopes were greater than the schedule slopes in these experiments. Guttman found that peak shift occurred in the generalization gradient around a stimulus associated with a VI 6O-sec schedule after training on multiple VI 60 sec VI 300 sec.…”

Section: Choice Responding 291mentioning

confidence: 99%

Choice responding following multiple schedule training

Edmon

Lucki

Grisham

1980

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pigeons' choice responding on 10-sec interpolated probes was studied after baseline training on multiple variable-interval variable-interval schedules of food reinforcement. Unreinforced choice following training with three different relative reinforcement rates (Experiment 1), with a 3-ply multiple schedule (Experiment 2), and with three different relative reinforcement durations (Experiment 3) was examined. Least squares lines were fit to choice relative response rate and schedule relative response rate as functions of training relative reinforcement rate; choice slope was significantly greater than schedule slope in all three experiments. This result is counter to the prediction of Herrnstein's (1970) theory that these slopes should not differ. Lues's (l959l theory also failed to account for the data. It was concluded that choice responding was controlled by both approach to the stimulus associated with the smaller mean interreinforcerinterval or the longer duration, and avoidance of the other stimulus.Herrnstein's (1970) theory specifies the relation between response strength and reinforcement rate in the components of multiple and concurrent schedules. Since Herrnstein further proposes that "choice is nothing but behavior set into the context of other behavior" (p. 255), relative response frequency should be the same whether measured simultaneously or successively, once component response strengths are established by the schedule. That is, Herrnstein's equation for multiple-schedule relative response frequency is also the equation for choice relative response frequency following multiple-schedule training. This prediction, that schedule and choice relative rates should be equivalent functions of reinforcement, was evaluated by investigating choice responding on interpolated probes following asymptotic multiple-schedule training.The choice probe results also permit further evaluation of the applicability of Luce's (1959) choice model in extinction tests. Luce (1977) has noted that matching on concurrent schedules is consistent with his model. However, Herrnstein and Loveland (1976), who employed a transfer test similar to that used here, found that choice results were more extreme than predicted by Luce's model. Herrnstein and Loveland (1976) employed this scale in predicting choice. The question of interest here is whether or not the model applies when choice is predicted by a scale derived from previous choice tests, not schedule responding. If the theory applies in this situation, we would have a basis for a ratio scale of relative response strength as a function of relative reinforcement rate for multipleschedule training, which is what the matching law provides for concurrent-schedule training. Nevin (1974) has reviewed arguments for the desirability of such a scale, with response strength conceived as a psychological construct that varies with parameters of reinforcement.Experiment 1 studied choice following three different relative reinforcement rates. To extend the generality of the results and...

show abstract

“…Los casos, 1, 3, 5, 6, 7 y 9 han sido estudiados por muchos investigadores (Dysart, Marx, Mclean, & Nelson, 1974;Guttman, 1959;Huff, Sherman, & Cohn, 1975;Mariner & Thomas, 1973;Terrace, 1968;Wheatley & Thomas, 1974;Wilkle, 1972;Yorczower, Dickson & Gollub, 1966;Yarczower, Gollub & Dickson, 1968). Los casos 2, 4 y 8 hasta el momento parecen no haber sido estudiados.…”

Section: No 2 II Semestre 1978unclassified

Variación de la probabilidad de refuerzo en el segundo componente de un programa múltiple y sus efectos sobre el gradiente de generalización

Investigación¹

1978

RCE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Se realizarán tres experimentos con el fin de estudiar los efectos de los cambios de la probabilidad de reforzamiento en el segundo componente de un múltiple y las tasas de respuestas así logradas sobre el gradiente de generalización. Los tres sujetos de cada experimento recibirán inicialmente entrenamiento no diferencial en un programa múltiple cuyos estímulos asociados son dos tonos de 1000 cps. (S 1 ) y 950 cps. (S 2 ). En el Experimento I no habrá variación en la probabilidad de refuerzo. Sin embargo, habrá cambios que permiten esperar un aumento en la tasa. En el Experimento II se incrementará la probabilidad de refuerzo en el segundo componente y la naturaleza del programa utilizado permite esperar también un aumento en la tasa de respuestas. En el Experimento III habrá una disminución en la mencionada probabilidad en el componente 2 y se espera un aumento en la tasa.Estas expectancias deben entenderse como una línea de base determinada a la cual pretendemos llegar antes de efectuar la prueba de generalización para cada uno de los grupos.Actualmente se utiliza el término "control del estímulo" para designar una función empírica continua cuyos extremos son la discriminación y la generalización. La utilización de este término evita una serie de confusiones generadas al intentar describir estos fenómenos separadamente. Un ejemplo de estas confusiones es el intento de formular la generalización como una ausencia de discriminación. Especifiquemos dos conceptos que son claves en la afirmación anterior y que por lo general su significado no es lo suficientemente preciso. Estos conceptos son "control del estímulo" y "función empírica continua". La siguiente cita puede definirnos correctamente "control del estímulo": "Si un cambio en algún aspecto de un estímulo que antecede a una respuesta resulta en un cambio en alguna medida de la respuesta, diremos que el estimulo ejerce un control sobre la respuesta" (Eckeaman, 1969). Desafortunadamente no disponemos de una definición similar para "función empírica continua". Este concepto trata de recordar las funciones continuas en matemáticas, sin embargo, no es claro en qué consiste la "continuidad empírica". Tal vez hablar de que no existen restricciones empíricas para graficar gradientes de generalización en un plano cartesiano aclare esta ide de "continuidad empírica".Dentro de esta gama "continua" de posibles gradientes de generalización existe una subclase de ellos que presentan una cierta "anomalía" que recibe el nombre de desplazamiento de pico. Más explícitamente, se presentan en ocasiones gradientes en los cuales el número mayor de respuestas no se da ante el estímulo discriminativo (desplazamiento de pico positivo) y el número menor de respuestas no se da ante el estímulo delta (desplazamiento de pico negativo). El desplazamiento de pico se da generalmente cuando el entrenamiento en discriminación se hace mediante ciertos programas múltiples. Hay una serie de trabajos que estudian sistemáticamente una de las variables que se manipulan en un programa múltiple: la ...

show abstract

Generalization gradients around stimuli associated with different reinforcement schedules.

Cited by 67 publications

References 10 publications

Effects of stimulus alternations on extinguishing a discrimination

Effects of stimulus alternations on extinguishing a discrimination

Choice responding following multiple schedule training

Variación de la probabilidad de refuerzo en el segundo componente de un programa múltiple y sus efectos sobre el gradiente de generalización

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About