Two-choice discrimination learning using multiple stimuli

Mandler, Jean M.

doi:10.1016/0023-9690(70)90150-5

Cited by 17 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…While CT Ss made some errors both when the S+ was replaced and when the S-was replaced, the performance of the O'I' Ss was disrupted by the replacement of the S-, but not by the replacement of the S+. A reliance on the S after overtraining has not been found in previous experiments (Stevens & Schofield, 1968;Mandler, 1968Mandler, , 1970Mandler, , 1971, and it may be an effect that depends critically upon the techniques of training. Mandler and Hooper (I967) suggest that the S-will be the important stimulus when the Ss must "execute the fairly complex response of slowing down and turning round" in front of it, i.e., when the Ss have a detour strategy.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 82%

Response strategies after overtraining in the jumping stand

Hall

1973

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rats were trained to criterion (Cl) and overtrained (OT) on a horizontal against vertical stripes discrimination in the jumping stand. A change in response strategy, from inspecting both stimuli to inspecting just the S-, was observed during overtraining. Replacing the S-with a novel stimulus disrupted performance in the OT Ss, but replacing the S+ did not. Performance in the CT Ss was disrupted, but not very severely, both when the S+ was replaced and when the S-was replaced. These results suggest that OT Ss in the jumping stand come to rely especially upon the S-. The overtraining effects found here are compared with those found in other types of apparatus.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 82%

Response strategies after overtraining in the jumping stand

Hall

1973

Animal Learning & Behavior

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

“…Unfortunately, no clear answer to this question is available. Several experiments have shown learning about the positive stimulus (S+) to be more effective (Ettlinger, 1960;Gardner & Coate, 1965;Vaughter, Tyer, & Halcomb, 1966;Hearst, 1971), while several others (Harlow & Hicks, 1957;Stevens & Fechter, 1968;Mandler, 1970) have favored learning about the negative stimulus (S-). These discrepant results are difficult to interpret, however, because of the variety of procedures and species used in the various experiments.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These discrepant results are difficult to interpret, however, because of the variety of procedures and species used in the various experiments. Replacing the S+ or S-in transfer tests (Stevens & Fechter, 1968;Mandler, 1968;Warren & Kimball, 1959), the use of multiple S+s and S-s (Gardner & Coate, 1965;Mandler, 1970), and reward vs extinction single-stimulus pretraining are a few of the procedures previously used. Similarly, the Ss have included rats, pigeons, and monkeys.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%