Response strategies after overtraining in the jumping stand

Hall, Geoffrey

doi:10.3758/bf03214585

Cited by 19 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 9 publications

(8 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These findings are consistent with the expectation according to the findings of Nakagawa (1980aNakagawa ( , 1980bNakagawa ( , 1999a. These findings are also explained by extant theories of discrimination learning: acquired cue distinctiveness theory (Lawrence, 1949(Lawrence, , 1950, response of discrimination theory (Pubols, 1956;Reid, 1953), selective attention theory (Mackintosh, 1965a), analyzer hierarchy theory (Sutherland & Mackintosh, 1971), and response strategy or response pattern theory (Hall, 1973a(Hall, , 1973b(Hall, , 1974Mandler, 1966Mandler, , 1968Mandler & Hooper, 1967). All these theories predict that overtraining should produce comparable positive ORE in Groups Wand eMS, and the results were observed.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 80%

“…These findings are in line with the expectation according to selective attention theory (Mackintosh, 1965a) and nonattention theory (Anderson et al, 1973) but not with the expectation according to response strategy or response pattern theories (Hall, 1973a(Hall, , 1973b(Hall, , 1974Mandler, 1966Mandler, , 1968Mandler & Hooper, 1967). This indicates that selective attention theory and nonattention theory are more valid as an explanatory theory for the positive overtraining reversal effect and the negative overtraining non reversal effect than response strategy or response pattern theories.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 79%

“…These findings of the present research are not readily .explained by extant theories of discrimination learning: response strategy or response pattern theory (Hall, 1973a(Hall, , 1973b(Hall, , 1974Mandler, 1966Mandler, , 1968Mandler & Hooper, 1967), selective attention theory (Mackintosh, 1965a), analyzer hierarchy theory (Sutherland & Mackintosh, 1971), and nonattention theory (Anderson, Kemler, & Shepp, 1973). Response strategy or response pattern theory predict that overtraining should produce both positive overtraining reversal effects in both Groups Wand CMS and positive overtraining extradimensional effects in both Groups CMS and EDS.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 45%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Effects of Overtraining on Reversal and Nonreversal Learning on Concurrent Discriminations in Rats

Nakagawa

2000

Psychol Rec

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two experiments examined the positive extradimensional shift effect of overtraining in concurrent mixed discriminations. In Experiment 1 rats were trained on two concurrent simultaneous discriminations and then either reversed on both tasks (Group W), or reversed on one task while a second novel discrimination was introduced (Group eMS). After initial training, two novel discrimination tasks were presented to a third group of rats (Group EDS). Overtraining facilitated extradimensional shift in Group eMS, whereas it neither facilitated nor retarded shift learning in Group EDS. In Experiment 2 using two concurrent go/no-go discriminations with the same design as in Experiment 1, overtraining facilitated extradimensional shift in Group eMS, whereas it delayed the corresponding shift in Group EDS. These findings make it clear that an important factor that determines the animals performance is not only stimulus properties but also the nature of the response required.The old dispute about whether or not overtraining facilitates reversal and non reversal (Le., extradimensional) shifts in a single discrimination task has generally been resolved by conceding that it facilitates reversal shift, whereas it delays or does not facilitate at least non reversal (Le., extradimensional) shift with a few exceptions, in which overtraining facilitates extradimensional shift (Hall, 1974;Mandler, 1968;Mandler & Hooper, 1967;Waller 1970Waller , 1971). However, recently some studies, using a . whole-partial reversal procedure, have reported that overtraining facilitated reversal shift (Le., a positive overtraining reversal effect: positive ORE) under one training condition, say, of a whole reversal condition, in which both discrimination tasks were reversed, whereas it retarded reversal shift (Le., a negative ORE) under the other training condition, say, of a partial reversal condition, in which only one of them was reversed, in concurrent discriminations (Nakagawa, 1978(Nakagawa, , 1986 Correspondence concerning this article should be sent to Esho Nakagawa,

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 80%

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 79%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 45%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effects of Overtraining on Reversal and Nonreversal Learning on Concurrent Discriminations in Rats

Nakagawa

2000

Psychol Rec

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…More errors occurred when S-was replaced than when S+ was replaced. This finding showed that S-was the relatively more important stimulus.Investigations of the relative importance of S+ and S-in discrimination learning have used several procedures: replaced-stimulus transfer tests (e.g., Hall, 1973;Mandler, 1968; Stevens & Fechter, 1968), singlestimulus training (e.g., Harlow & Hicks, 1957; Vaughter, Tyer, & Halcomb, 1966), and multiple-stimulus discriminations (e .g., Mandler, 1970Mandler, , 1971 Mullins & Winefield, 1979). The interpretation of results obtained using these procedures is beset by problems in experimental design and errors in fundamental assumptions.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of the relative importance of S+ and S− in rats, using intercurrent simultaneous and successive discriminations

Stevens

Mason

Wixon

1981

Bull. Psychon. Soc.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Replaced-stimulus transfer tests were used to assess the relative importance of S+ and Swithout the confoundings typically associated with that procedure. Albino rats were given intercurrent training on a successive discrimination and a simultaneous discrimination. Then; two replaced-stimulus transfer tests were given. For one test, the S+ from the simultaneous discrimination was replaced by a stimulus from the successive discrimination. For the other test, the S-from the simultaneous discrimination was replaced by the other stimulus from the successive discrimination. More errors occurred when S-was replaced than when S+ was replaced. This finding showed that S-was the relatively more important stimulus.Investigations of the relative importance of S+ and S-in discrimination learning have used several procedures: replaced-stimulus transfer tests (e.g., Hall, 1973;Mandler, 1968; Stevens & Fechter, 1968), singlestimulus training (e.g., Harlow & Hicks, 1957; Vaughter, Tyer, & Halcomb, 1966), and multiple-stimulus discriminations (e .g., Mandler, 1970Mandler, , 1971 Mullins & Winefield, 1979). The interpretation of results obtained using these procedures is beset by problems in experimental design and errors in fundamental assumptions.Stevens and Wixon (1976) assessed whether novel or complex stimuli confound replaced-stimulus transfer tests, single-stimulus training, and multiple-stimulus discrimination. They found that the relative complexity of replacement stimuli significantly biased the results of replaced-stimulus transfer tests in favor of an interpretation stressing the relative importance of S-. The relative novelty of the replacement stimulus produced a similar bias. Finally, manipulating the relative attractiveness of stimuli produced results consistent with an interpretation stressing the importance of S+. While these fmdings suggest that previous assessments of relative stimulus control have produced results influenced by nonassociative factors, they did not indicate which stimulus was relatively more important.Recently, using a new method, Mason, Stevens, Wixon, and Owens (1980) reported two studies that assessed the degree of control exerted by S+ and Swithout confoundings by nonassociative factors. For the first experiment, training was given on two discrimina- tion problems with more training on one problem than on the other. During transfer tests that followed training, the more-trained stimuli from the one problem were paired with the less-trained stimuli from the other. The transfer test results were consistent with an interpretation stressing the relative importance of S-; that is, fewer errors were made when a more-trained Swas paired with a less-trained S+ than when a moretrained S+ was paired with a less-trained S-. The results from a control group given uncorrelated reinforcement during training showed that differences in stimulus exposure could not account for the differences in stimulus importance. The second experiment by Mason et al. demonstrated that S-was the relatively more importan...

show abstract

“…These data are not easily accounted for, either by selective attention theory (e.g., Sutherland & Macintosh, 1971) or by more general attentional theories (e.g., Reid, 1953), inasmuch as both formulations require a discrimination context for the hypothesized growth of "analyzer strength" or a "response of discriminating." Hall's (1973) response strategy explanation of the ORE also depends upon discrimination experience with both S+ and S-present .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%