Bidirectional gradients in the strength of a generalized voluntary response to stimuli on a visualspatial dimension.

Brown, Judson S.; Bilodeau, Edward A.; Baron, Martin R.

doi:10.1037/h0058156

Cited by 64 publications

(47 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This was similar to results reported in other stimulus-generalization studies (Brown et al, 1951;Rosenbaum, 1956;Mednick, 1958) employing human Ss and a voluntary response. Although LMA Ss tended to have slower response latencies, their gradient was irregular.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 91%

“…Other theories of stimulus generalization (Spence, 1937;Hull, 1943;Brown, Bilodeau, & Baron, 1951) posit that the excitatory potential acquired through prior training to So generalizes to the test stimuli that vary in size, shape, and distance from So. Stimulus units are defined in terms of the population of stimuli that S has experienced within the experimental situation.…”

Section: University Of New Hampshirementioning

confidence: 99%

“…The apparatus was similar to the one used by Mednick and Lehtinen (1957) and originally devised by Brown et al (1951). Briefly, it consisted of a flat, black curved plywood panel, 6 ft. X 2 ft., mounted on its long edge on a table.…”

Section: Apparatusmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Stimulus Generalization as a Function of Mental Age

Tempone¹

1965

Child Development

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 91%

Section: University Of New Hampshirementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Stimulus Generalization as a Function of Mental Age

Tempone¹

1965

Child Development

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In the study of stimulus generalization with humans as subjects, verbal instructions to respond to a particular (training) stimulus value (and to no other) are often substituted for the operant or Pavlovian training given to infrahuman organisms (Brown, Bilodeau, & Baron, 1951;Kalish, 1958). The gradients obtained, however, look much like those obtained in conditioning studies; that is, typically maximal responding occurs to the value of the training stimulus, with response probability systematically decreasing as a function of the dimensional distance between a given test stimulus and the training value.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Stimulus presentation frequency in brightness discrimination and generalization: A test of adaptation-level and signal-detection interpretations

Thomas

Windell

Williams

et al. 1985

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In Experiment 1, brightness discriminations were established under conditions in which the stimulus to which "same" responses were required (S+) was presented more frequently than the stimulus to which "different" responses were made (S-), S+ and S-were presented equally often, or S-was more frequent than S+. Subsequent generalization gradients along the brightness dimension were shifted away from the stimulus value more frequently presented during training. In Experiment 2, brightness discriminations were established under conditions of equally frequent presentations of S+ and S-stimuli in training, but in subsequent generalization testing S+ and S-values were equally represented or overrepresented relative to presentations of other test stimuli. Generalization gradients shifted towards the overrepresented stimulus value, relative to gradients obtained for equal presentation-frequency conditions. The shift in gradients away from the more frequently presented stimulus during training in Experiment 1 was consistent with accounts of stimulus generalization based on both adaptation-level theory and signal-detection theory. The shift in gradients towards the more frequently presented stimulus during testing in Experiment 2, however, was consistent with adaptation-level theory, whereas the signaldetection account had predicted a shift in the opposite direction. These results attest to the importance of relative stimulus presentation frequency as a determinant of postdiscrimination stimulus generalization performance. Because feedback was given only during training, the opposite effects of presentation probability in training and testing may reflect an interaction between presentation probability and feedback.

show abstract

“…An unstated assumption is that the same stimuli have 745 1969,12,[745][746][747][748][749][750][751][752][753][754][755][756][757] NUMBER 5 (SEPTEMBER) controlled the subject's behavior both before and after the gradient changed. Lashley and Wade (1946) interpreted the flat gradient as a failure of the subject to discriminate the relevant stimulus, and were challenged by Brown, Bilodeau, and Baron (1951) to define failure of discrimination "independently of the particular generalization reaction it is supposed to explain." The assumption that "failure to discriminate" reflects control by other stimuli makes independent definition possible.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

GENERALIZATION GRADIENTS AND STIMULUS CONTROL IN DELAYED MATCHING‐TO‐SAMPLE¹

Sidman

1969

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Neurological patients were subjects in delayed visual matching‐to‐sample. The sample and choice stimuli were ellipses of varying size. By measuring the difference in size between the sample on a given trial and the ellipse the subject chose on that trial, gradients of differences between samples and choice stimuli could be plotted. These difference gradients broadened with increasing delays. Sharp gradients were controlled by the samples. Flat gradients were controlled by features of the choice display, independently of the samples. Intermediate gradients reflected combined control by the samples and by the choice displays.

show abstract

Bidirectional gradients in the strength of a generalized voluntary response to stimuli on a visualspatial dimension.

Cited by 64 publications

References 11 publications

Stimulus Generalization as a Function of Mental Age

Stimulus Generalization as a Function of Mental Age

Stimulus presentation frequency in brightness discrimination and generalization: A test of adaptation-level and signal-detection interpretations

GENERALIZATION GRADIENTS AND STIMULUS CONTROL IN DELAYED MATCHING‐TO‐SAMPLE¹

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Bidirectional gradients in the strength of a generalized voluntary response to stimuli on a visualspatial dimension.

Cited by 64 publications

References 11 publications

Stimulus Generalization as a Function of Mental Age

Stimulus Generalization as a Function of Mental Age

Stimulus presentation frequency in brightness discrimination and generalization: A test of adaptation-level and signal-detection interpretations

GENERALIZATION GRADIENTS AND STIMULUS CONTROL IN DELAYED MATCHING‐TO‐SAMPLE1

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

GENERALIZATION GRADIENTS AND STIMULUS CONTROL IN DELAYED MATCHING‐TO‐SAMPLE¹