Learned variability

Stokes, Patricia D.

doi:10.3758/bf03199931

Cited by 57 publications

(73 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Earlier work has shown that variability is maintained in a targeted response dimension (Stokes, 1995a). However, we do not know what happens in other aspects of responding.…”

mentioning

confidence: 78%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effects of different acquisition procedures on response variability

Stokes

Mechner

Balsam

1999

Animal Learning & Behavior

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In three experiments with college students, the effects of different acquisition procedures on response variability were studied. The computer keypressing task involved learning a sequence with a minimum number of presses on a subset of the keyboard. Procedures differed in type of training and in the number, size, and sequence of training steps. Experiment 1 showed that instructions and shaping in three steps generated less variability in the number of responses made in each keypress sequence than shaping in six steps. Subsequent experiments showed that a large increase in the response requirement early in shaping increased variability. Postacquisition variability remained unchanged in the number of responses per sequence-the aspect of responding on which reinforcement was contingent-but declined in location and timing of keypressing. The results are discussed in terms of the implicit reinforcement of variability and how the acquisition of qualitatively different response strategies could influence variability.

show abstract

“…Earlier work has shown that variability is maintained in a targeted response dimension (Stokes, 1995a). However, we do not know what happens in other aspects of responding.…”

mentioning

confidence: 78%

“…One manipulation that affects variability involves placing different topographic contingencies on response form. Rats shaped to barpress under an initially high constraint (right paw only) were more variable than those shaped with a low initial constraint (press any way), even after the constraints were reversed (Stokes, 1995a).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of different acquisition procedures on response variability

Stokes

Mechner

Balsam

1999

Animal Learning & Behavior

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The question is important for the many cases in which variability is adaptive, for example, in problem-solving, creativity, skilled motor learning, and development of cognitive strategies (e.g., Manoel & Connolly, 1995;Siegler, 1996). In operant-shaping procedures as well, reinforcement presentations are intermixed with temporary withholding of reinforcements, it being thought that withholding reinforcement induces the variability necessary for shaping (Page & Neuringer, 1985;Stokes, 1995). Thus, short-term extinction is part of the shaping process, but what, in fact, is the result of such extinction?…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…When reinforcement was then withheld, variability increased, with responses now occurring all along the strip (see also Eckerman & Lanson, 1969). Variability induced by extinction has been observed with many other response dimensions, including response force (Notterman & Mintz, 1965), response number (Mechner, 1958), response topography (Stokes, 1995), and response sequences (Balsam, Paterniti, Zechowy, & Stokes, 2000;Mechner, Hyten, Field, & Madden, 1997), and across species, from bacteria to humans. In summary, the evidence is clear that extinction increases response variability.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Stability and variability in extinction.

Neuringer¹,

Kornell²,

Olufs³

2001

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes

104

101

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Some studies have found that extinction leaves response structures unaltered; others have found that response variability is increased. Responding by Long-Evans rats was extinguished after 3 schedules. In one, reinforcement depended on repetitions of a particular response sequence across 3 operanda. In another, sequences were reinforced only if they varied. In the third, reinforcement was yoked: not contingent upon repetitions or variations. In all cases, rare sequences increased during extinctionvariability increased-but the ordering of sequence probabilities was generally unchanged, the most common sequences during reinforcement continuing to be most frequent in extinction. The rats' combination of generally doing what worked before but occasionally doing something very different may maximize the possibility of reinforcement from a previously bountiful source while providing necessary variations for new learning.

show abstract

“…Diversos experimentos vêm explorando esse contínuo variabilidade/repetição, demonstrando que ambos os padrões podem ser operantes, ou seja, dependentes do reforçamento contingente a eles (Barba & Hunziker, 2002;Hunziker, Saldana & Neuringer, 1996;Machado, 1989;Neuringer, 1991;1992;Stokes, 1995). Além das contingências em vigor, tem sido demonstrado que a aprendizagem da variação/repetição pode também sofrer interferência da história do sujeito, como, por exemplo, a ordem de apresentação das contingências de acoplamento ou de reforçamento da variabilidade (Hunziker, Caramori, Silva & Barba, 1998).…”

Section: H L Hunziker E Colsunclassified

Variabilidade e repetição operantes aprendidas após estímulos aversivos incontroláveis

Hunziker

Yamada

Manfré

et al. 2006

Psic.: Teor. e Pesq.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

RESUMO -O objetivo desse experimento foi verificar se a experiência prévia com eventos aversivos incontroláveis interfere na aprendizagem da variabilidade ou da repetição operantes. Ratos (n=45) tiveram a reposta de pressão à barra reforçada positivamente em CRF e FR 4, sendo depois divididos em três grupos, expostos a choques elétricos controláveis, incontroláveis ou nenhum choque. Em seguida, receberam nove a 12 sessões de reforçamento positivo para seqüências de quatro respostas de pressão a barra, em uma caixa com duas barras (direita -D e esquerda -E): metade dos sujeitos foi reforçada por variar (VAR) e metade por repetir uma mesma seqüência (REP). Os resultados mostraram que o tratamento prévio com choques não interferiu na aprendizagem dos padrões de variabilidade e de repetição, que foram dependentes apenas da contingência em vigor. Esses dados são contrários ao previsto pela hipótese do desamparo aprendido.Palavras-chave: variabilidade operante; repetição operante; choques incontroláveis; desamparo aprendido. Operant Variability and Repetition Learned after UncontrollableAversive Stimuli ABSTRACT -The aim of the present experiment was to verify whether the previous experience with uncontrollable aversive events interferes in the learning of operant variability and repetition. Rats responses to lever pressure (n=45) were reinforced positively in CRF and FR 4 contingencies and then divided into three groups, exposed to electric shocks that could be either controllable, uncontrollable or none. After that, nine to 12 positive reinforcement sessions were conducted for sequences of four lever pressure responses in a box with two levers (right -D and left -E): half subjects was reinforced for varying (VAR) and half for repeating a same sequence (REP). The results showed that the previous shock treatment did not interfere in the learning of repetition and variability patterns which were only dependent on the contingence in force. These data are in disagreement with the learned helplessness hypothesis prediction.

show abstract

Learned variability

Cited by 57 publications

References 42 publications

Effects of different acquisition procedures on response variability

Effects of different acquisition procedures on response variability

Stability and variability in extinction.

Variabilidade e repetição operantes aprendidas após estímulos aversivos incontroláveis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About