Literature DB >> 1620565

A comparison of generalization functions and frame of reference effects in different training paradigms.

D R Thomas1, M Lusky, S Morrison.   

Abstract

Six experiments were carried out to compare go/no-go and choice paradigms for studying the effects of intradimensional discrimination training on subsequent measures of stimulus generalization in human subjects. Specifically, the purpose was to compare the two paradigms as means of investigating generalization gradient forms and frame of reference effects. In Experiment 1, the stimulus dimension was visual intensity (brightness); in Experiment 2, it was line orientation (line-angle stimuli). After learning to respond (or to respond "right") to stimulus value (SV) 4 and not to respond (or to respond "left") to SV2 (in Experiment 1) or SV1 (in Experiment 2), the subjects were tested for generalization (recognition) with an asymmetrical set of values ranging from SV1 to SV11. Go/no-go training produced peaked gradients, whereas choice training produced sigmoid gradients. The asymmetrical testing resulted in a gradual shift of the peak of responding (go/no-go group) or in the point of subjective indifference (PSI; choice group) toward the central value of the test series; thus, both paradigms revealed a frame of reference effect. The results were comparable for the quantitative (intensity) and the qualitative (line-angle) stimulus dimensions. Experiment 3 compared the go/no-go procedure with a yes/no procedure in which subjects responded "right" to SV4 and "left" to all other intensities and found no differences between these procedures. Thus the difference in gradient forms in go/no as opposed to (traditional) choice paradigms depends on whether one or two target stimuli are used in training. In Experiment 4, in which visual intensity was used, the shift in the PSI following choice training varied positively with the range of asymmetrical test stimuli employed. In Experiment 5, also with visual intensity, the magnitude of the peak shift following go/no-go training varied as a function of overrepresenting a high or a low stimulus value during generalization testing. Experiment 6, with line angles, showed that the PSI following choice training varies in a similar way. The frame of reference effects obtained in these experiments are consistent with an adaptation-level model.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1992        PMID: 1620565     DOI: 10.3758/bf03211650

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Percept Psychophys        ISSN: 0031-5117


  11 in total

1.  Stimulus generalization as a function of the frame of reference.

Authors:  D R THOMAS; C G JONES
Journal:  J Exp Psychol       Date:  1962-07

2.  Effects of discrimination training on stimulus generalization.

Authors:  H M HANSON
Journal:  J Exp Psychol       Date:  1959-11

3.  Peak shift revisited: a test of alternative interpretations.

Authors:  D R Thomas; K Mood; S Morrison; E Wiertelak
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process       Date:  1991-04

4.  Learning function for a change in the scale of judgment.

Authors:  D M JOHNSON
Journal:  J Exp Psychol       Date:  1949-12

5.  Context and frequency effects in the generalization of a human voluntary response.

Authors:  J A Hébert; M Bullock; L Levitt; K G Woodward; F D McGuirk
Journal:  J Exp Psychol       Date:  1974-03

6.  Postdiscrimination gradients of human subjects on a tone continuum.

Authors:  A Baron
Journal:  J Exp Psychol       Date:  1973-12

7.  On the form of stimulus generalization curves for visual intensity.

Authors:  A J Ernst; L Engberg; D R Thomas
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1971-09       Impact factor: 2.468

8.  Category judgment: a range-frequency model.

Authors:  A Parducci
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  1965-11       Impact factor: 8.934

9.  The central tendency effect in stimulus generalization: effects of establishing a "preexperimental" frome of reference.

Authors:  R J Newlin; J P Rodgers; J F Dickson; H Strub; D R Thomas
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  1978-08

10.  The array size function in simple visual search tasks: a comparison between "go-no go" and "yes-no" tasks under conditions of high and low target-noise similarity.

Authors:  A H van der Heijden; W La Heij
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  1982
View more
  4 in total

1.  Stimulus control and generalization of point-loss punishment with humans.

Authors:  J O'Donnell; J Crosbie; D C Williams; K J Saunders
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  2000-05       Impact factor: 2.468

2.  How training and testing histories affect generalization: a test of simple neural networks.

Authors:  Stefano Ghirlanda; Magnus Enquist
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2007-03-29       Impact factor: 6.237

3.  Categories and range effects in human spatial memory.

Authors:  Ken Cheng; Marcia L Spetch; Andros Hoan
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2010-12-21

4.  Rule-based generalization and peak shift in the presence of simple relational rules.

Authors:  Jessica C Lee; Evan J Livesey
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-09-14       Impact factor: 3.240

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.