Perception of Changes in Certain Exteroceptive Stimuli

Abstract

Although cybernetic models of one sort or another have become quite common in behavioral research, and although these models theoretically require a capacity for system detection of changes in error, no general psychophysical description of the individual human being's ability to discriminate different rates of stimulation is available. An initial survey of this type has been attempted and is reported here. For reasons which appear to be related to the biological mechanisms underlying sensory information processing, it is concluded, first, that ancillary cues of rate-related final magnitude are more valuable than cues of stimulus duration; second, that direct attention to on-going change is less precise than attention to final values only; and third, that differences in isochronal stimulus rates occurring in place or extent are more readily perceived than differences in isochronal rate of change in energy content, at least for the stimuli and ranges examined.

Base on balls for the Chapman strategy: Reassessing Brouwer, Brenner, and Smeets (2002)

“…The sensitivity of the visual system to acceleration has been tested in numerous studies (e.g., Babler & Dannemiller, 1993; Brouwer et al, 2002; Calderone & Kaiser, 1989; Filion, 1964; Gottsdanker, Frick, & Lockard, 1961; Haarmeier & Thier, 2006; Hick, 1950; Notterman, Filion, & Mandriota, 1971; Notterman & Page, 1957; Schmerler, 1976; Watamaniuk & Heinen, 2003; Werkhoven, Snippe, & Toet, 1992). An important observation/finding in these studies has been that, when asked to judge the acceleration of moving stimuli,4 observers do not respond to acceleration as physics would define it (the instantaneous rate of change of velocity v : dv / dt ), even when the velocity of the stimulus changes at a constant rate (i.e., when dv / dt is constant).…”

“…Schmerler (1976) defined a velocity ratio that was the ratio of the final velocity of the stimulus and the initial velocity. Hick (1950) and others after him (e.g., Filion, 1964; Notterman et al, 1971; Notterman & Page, 1957) used a velocity ratio that was the change in velocity divided by the initial velocity. In the case of linear changes in the velocity of the stimulus, all three versions of the velocity ratio are related.…”

Sensory vs. motor effects of brain stimulation

“…1 We should learn more about eliciting stimuli I agree, a n d -i n facthave made some modest contributions toward that end (Notterman and Mintz, 1965, chaps 1, 4, 6, 7;Notterman, Filion, and Mandriota, 1971) 2 We should expand the number of options available to an organism in a standard experimental situation, so that we can study " the relative valence of the various situational stimuli " "This idea has obvious implications for therapeutic behavior modifications in man" [see Murray, this Commentary] I happen to agree, but more importantly, so do clinical psychologists (Levine and Fasnacht, 1974), theoreticians of abnormal psychology (Krasner, 1976), and psychoanalysts (Moore, 1974) And they do so in the absence of pexgos, or even superegos 3 We should construct laboratory environments in such a manner as to reinforce an organism for observing how well eliciting stimuli predict the THE BEHAVIORAL AND BRAIN SCIENCES (1978), 1 occurrence of incentive stimuli We are enjoined to do so because" learning by observation of models (copying, imitation, etc) need no longer be considered as a special form of learning, but as one in which the demonstrator model plays a part in making the novice or learner observe the critical stimuli and their relations" (Bindra, 1974 op cit) In both of the key studies cited in the reference, learning by modeling groups was superior to that of controls However, so was the learning by merely observational groups (i e , non-modeling, but lookmg-on in one manner or another, without active reproduction of the demonstrator's behavior) Groesbeck and Duerfeldt (who did one of the cited experiments) remark: "If exposure to the learning situation without a demonstrator provides the same results as exposure with a demonstrator, there is probably a better term to explain the phenomenon than 'observational learning ' A simple construct such as stimulus enhancement would be more parsimonious" (Groesbeck and Duerfeldt, 1971, pp 4 1 -43) 4 We should " study the development of the ability to abstract knowledge of causal relations-what has been called 'development of causality' -(which) is from the present viewpoint an aspect of the general problem of learning the correlations we observe in our environments " I wish that space had allowed Bindra to make contact with others who have expressed similar concerns (for example, Kant's "apperception," Piaget's "conception," and Harry Stack Sullivan's "protaxic, parataxic, and syntaxic" cognitive modes of organizing experience)…”

Discussion of “On-line computers in the animal laboratory”

“…Shall we, in our fear of the teleological undertones to the words "purposivism" and "functionalism," ignore the evidence that lower forms of life (let alone man himself) can extrapolate in time from the immediate present, based upon cueing information provided by the momentarily changing values of current discriminative stimuli (Rosenblueth, Wiener, & Bigelow, 1943;Bernshtein, 1969;Notterman, Filion, & Mandriota, 1971)?…”