1974
DOI: 10.3758/bf03199110
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Stimulus generalization in monkeys following discrimination training with gray stimuli

Abstract: Eight rhesus monkeys were trained on a successive discrimination problem with light gray and dark gray stimuli. Following training, generalization tests were given with variable stimuli ranging from white to black. Responses and response latencies were recorded. Responses were faster to the training stimulus values than to middle grays or to the extreme values on the lightness continuum. The theoretical implications of this as compared to other possible findings are developed.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

0
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(1 citation statement)
references
References 11 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…It has also been demonstrated that the generalization within the trained range is imperfect but is much better than that beyond the trained range when pigeons are tested for color discrimination ( Thomas and Williams, 1963 ). In contrast, monkeys may have an ability for out-of-range generalization; in one study, rhesus monkeys trained on a luminance discrimination task were able to choose a brighter stimulus from a pair with various luminances, including values outside the trained range ( Flagg et al, 1974 ).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It has also been demonstrated that the generalization within the trained range is imperfect but is much better than that beyond the trained range when pigeons are tested for color discrimination ( Thomas and Williams, 1963 ). In contrast, monkeys may have an ability for out-of-range generalization; in one study, rhesus monkeys trained on a luminance discrimination task were able to choose a brighter stimulus from a pair with various luminances, including values outside the trained range ( Flagg et al, 1974 ).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%