A theory of learning and transfer: I

Gulliksen, Harold; Wolfle, Dael

doi:10.1007/bf02288482

Cited by 87 publications

(44 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Here, we arranged discrimination training in such a way that stimulus generalization theory predicted a decrease in transposition with an increase in the numbers of training pairs. Still, pigeons' transposition responses reliably increased from one-pair to two-pair to three-pair trainity of relational responding (Gulliksen & Wolfle, 1938;Klüver, 1933;Köhler, 1918Köhler, /1938Riley, 1958;Stevenson & Bitterman, 1955), although this notion has rarely been expressed quantitatively. Figure 8 illustrates this idea by using the log-transformed diameters of the first stimulus and the second stimulus in the training pair or the testing pair as two dimensions of the similarity space.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Surprisingly, our data revealed a potential third factor that appears to modulate pigeons' choices: the overall similarity of the testing pair to the training pair(s), or what we have termed novelty. Although several theorists have suggested that this factor may affect the probability of relational responding (Gulliksen & Wolfle, 1938;Klüver, 1933;Köhler, 1918Köhler, /1938Riley, 1958;Stevenson & Bitterman, 1955), it has received little empirical or theoretical attention. Our own future research will explore how these three factors-stimulus generalization, relational disparity, and novelty-affect transposition after different training regimes.…”

Section: Notesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Multiple-pair training enhances transposition in pigeons

Lazareva

Miner

Wasserman

et al. 2008

Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

174For 7 decades, Kenneth W. Spence's (1937) theory of discrimination learning has provided an elegant and sometimes counterintuitive account of several important behavioral phenomena, including transposition, which was first explored by Köhler (1918Köhler ( /1938. In a typical transposition task, a subject may be given a single pair of simultaneously presented stimuli (e.g., a 3-cm circle and a 4-cm circle) and may be required to select the smaller one (the 3-cm circle). Originally, transposition was said to occur if the subject selected the smaller, relationally correct item in a novel pair of stimuli (e.g., a 2-cm circle and a 3-cm circle), instead of the previously reinforced stimulus (the 3-cm circle). We will term the choice of the relationally correct stimulus a transposition response and the choice of the relationally incorrect stimulus an absolute response.Spence's (1937) stimulus generalization theory explained choice of the relationally correct stimulus with interacting gradients of excitation and inhibition, which arose from absolute stimulus-response tendencies. The theory is based on three simple premises. (1) When a stimulus is associated with reinforcement, a gradient of excitation develops around it; maximal excitation is produced by the training stimulus, with orderly decreases in excitation occurring as stimuli are increasingly removed from it.(2) When a stimulus is associated with nonreinforcement, a less peaked and broader gradient of inhibition develops around it, with orderly decreases in inhibition occurring as stimuli are increasingly removed from it. (3) If the S and the S lie along the same stimulus dimension, then in order to predict responding to any given stimulus, one algebraically sums its excitatory value (on the excitatory gradient) with its inhibitory value (on the inhibitory gradient); doing so along the entire dimension yields a theoretical or derived postdiscrimination stimulus generalization gradient.It is precisely through the algebraic summation of excitation and inhibition that Spence's (1937) theory predicts choice of the relationally correct stimulus. This summation may result in maximal net excitation (and hence, conditioned responding) not at the S , but rather at a point displaced away from the S (e.g., the 2-cm circle, instead of the previously reinforced 3-cm circle). In essence, Spence (1937) proposed that the choice of the previously untrained stimulus over the former S may be no more relational than the tendency to approach S and the tendency to avoid S . Later, peak shift (reviewed by Purtle, 1973) was experimentally documented, providing further support for Spence's (1937) theory.Note that peak shift is not a necessary consequence of discrimination training. For example, when the training stimuli are widely spaced along the sensory dimension (in other words, when the training stimuli are highly dissimilar), a summation of excitatory and inhibitory gradients does not produce a peak shift, a result that has been We studied transposition in pigeons by training t...

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Notesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Multiple-pair training enhances transposition in pigeons

Lazareva

Miner

Wasserman

et al. 2008

Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although the experimenter records only two responses (upright triangle chosen or inverted triangle chosen) it is implied that each response is learned separately to two configurations. Examples of theorists who have found the configuration model useful in the analysis of discrimination learning are Gulliksen and Wolfle (1938) and Spence (1952). Lashley rejected the configuration model after finding some instances of positive transfer to new cards containing variations of the figure, of the background, or both.…”

Section: Three Models Of Conditional Discrimination Learningmentioning

confidence: 99%

Complex Learning and Information Processing by Pigeons: A Critical Analysis

Carter

Werner

1978

J Exper Analysis Behavior

344

241

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Three models of conditional discrimination learning by pigeons are described: stimulus configuration learning, the multiple-rule model, and concept learning. A review of the literature reveals that true concept learning is not characteristic of the behavior of pigeons in matching-to-sample, oddity-from-sample, or symbolic matching studies. Instead, pigeons learn a set of sample-specific SD rules. Transfer of the discrimination to novel stimuli, at least along the hue dimension, is predicted by a "coding hypothesis", which holds that pigeons make a unique, but usually unobserved response, R,, to each sample, and that the comparison stimulus chosen depends on which R1 was emitted in the presence of the sample. Convincing evidence is found that pigeons do code sample hues, but there is little evidence that allows one to infer that the "coding event" must have behavioral properties. Parameters of the conditional discrimination paradigm are identified, and it is shown that by appropriate parametric manipulation, a variety of analogous tasks may be generated for both human and animal subjects. The tasks make possible the comparative study of complex learning, attention, memory, and information processing, with the added advantage that behavior processes may be compared systematically across tasks.

show abstract

“…According to another class of theory (e.g., Gulliksen & Wolfle, 1938), however, the two kinds of trials of a simultaneous discrimination involve the presentation of two distinct stimulus configurations, red to the left of green on some trials and green to the left of red on others, and the problem is solved by learning to make one response (left) to one configuration and another (right) to the other. Yet a third class of theory is possible (e.g., Medin, 1975): Animals might learn to respond to particular color-position compounds-for example, to red -left and red -right in preference to green-right and green-left.…”

Section: Theory Of Discrim Ination Learning Elemental and Configural mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Both Gulliksen and Wolfle's (1938) and Medin's (1975) theories can be regarded as configural theories. They differ, of course, in whether they see all four component stimuli (red, green, left, and right) as forming a configuration, or only two at a time (red and left or green and right, etc.).…”

Section: Theory Of Discrim Ination Learning Elemental and Configural mentioning

confidence: 99%