Differential effects of continuous extinction and discrimination training on the generalization gradient.

Honig, Werner K.; Thomas, David R.; Guttman, Norman

doi:10.1037/h0048484

Cited by 65 publications

(74 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…

…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

CONTRAST, GENERALIZATION, AND THE PROCESS OF DISCRIMINATION¹

Reynolds

1961

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A combination of generalization gradients for reinforcement and extinction fails to predict the generalization gradient produced by training a discrimination between two stimuli (Honig, Thomas, & Guttman, 1959;Hanson, 1959). One reason for this failure is that the usual generalization gradient for extinction reflects only an inhibitory effect of extinction, whereas extinction has not only an inhibitory effect but also an excitatory one. The inhibitory effect is an over-all decrease in responding over the stimulus continuum.The excitatory effect appears during the formation of a discrimination as an increase in responding in the presence of the stimulus correlated with reinforcement. This increase is called behavioral contrast . Moreover, an adequate description of the process of discrimination must take into account both the inhibitory and the excitatory effects of extinction.The primary purpose of this research is to compare generalization gradients for extinction and reinforcement obtained by a procedure that allows both effects of extinction to be measured. A second purpose is to examine the contribution of contrast to postdiscrimination generalization gradients. In this method, a pigeon's key pecking is first reinforced in the presence of ten values of a stimulus continuum. To obtain the reinforcement gradient, responding is then reinforced in only two of the values and extinguished in the remaining eight; or to obtain the extinction gradient, responding is extinguished in two of the values and reinforced in eight. With this method of maintained generalization gradients (cf. Pierrel, 1958), the effect of extinction on reinforced responding can be measured as increases in the rate of responding over the base-line rate maintained by reinforcement in all ten stimuli. METHOD ApparatusA modified picnic icebox contained the experimental chamber (Ferster Sc Skinner, 1957). A transparent, but otherwise standard, response key, 0.75 inch in diameter and faced with cover glass to minimize scratching, was mounted on one wall, which was painted a uniform flat black. An effective force of about 15 grams operated the key. The pigeon occasionally had access to grain for 3 seconds (reinforcement) through a 2-by 2-inch opening beneath the key. 'The present research was supported by grant NSF-G8621 to Harvard University from the National Science Foundation.Two 6-watt white lamps mounted behind the panel, one on each side of the key, were the only illumination in the chamber. A white masking noise was always present.The stimulus continuum was the spatial orientation of the apex of a triangle. A black isosceles triangle, 0.5 inch high and 0.25 inch along the base, was mounted on a white background 0.5 inch behind the transparent key. This triangle and the background were attached to a synchronous motor that slowly but continually rotated clockwise at a speed of slightly less than 0.19 degree per second (about twice the speed of the minute hand of a clock). The rotation of the triangle was in a plane perpendicular to the pigeon's...

show abstract

“…

…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

CONTRAST, GENERALIZATION, AND THE PROCESS OF DISCRIMINATION¹

Reynolds

1961

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A second purpose of the study was to explore the retention of a conditioned discrimination, as reflected by changes in the generalization gradient. Considerable evidence (e.g., Hanson, 1957;Honig, Thomas, & Guttman, 1959) has been obtained that discrimination training produces a steepening of the gradient and a shift in the peak of responding away from the SD value. It was anticipated that a decrease in the strength of the discrimination might be reflected by a reversal of these changes, i.e., a progressive flattening of the gradient and shift toward the SD value.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Stimulus Generalization as a Function of the Time Between Training and Testing Procedures

Thomas

Ost

Thomas

1960

J Exper Analysis Behavior

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present experiment was designed, primarily, to study changes in the stimulusgeneralization gradient as a function of the interpolation of a time interval between training and testing procedures. A second purpose of the study was to explore the retention of a conditioned discrimination, as reflected by changes in the generalization gradient. Considerable evidence (e.g., Hanson, 1957;Honig, Thomas, & Guttman, 1959) has been obtained that discrimination training produces a steepening of the gradient and a shift in the peak of responding away from the SD value. It was anticipated that a decrease in the strength of the discrimination might be reflected by a reversal of these changes, i.e., a progressive flattening of the gradient and shift toward the SD value. METHOD SubjectsThe Ss were 15 White Carneau pigeons maintained by restricted feeding at 70-80% of their free-feeding weights.Apparatus Four Skinner-type automatic key-pecking apparatuses were used. One box was set aside for generalization testing. The light source for the illumination of the key in this box was a Bausch and Lomb monochromator, in which a diffraction grating is used to disperse white light into the spectral continuum. The other three boxes have Bausch and Lomb interference filters. The brightness level and transmission band width of the monochromator and filter colors were approximately equal. In addition, each S received part of its training in the test box so as to have experience with both kinds of stimuli. The apparatus was essentially the same as that described in other reports from the Duke University laboratory. Procedure After magazine training, Ss were trained to peck at the key, which was illuminated by a light of 550 millimicrons. When the response was well-established on a 100% schedule after 2 days of 50 reinforcements each, Ss were placed on a 60-second VI schedule for 2 days. Each training session consisted of 30 stimulus-on periods of 60 seconds, during which the data were recorded. Each of these periods alternated with 10-second blackout periods. In discrimination training the stimuli were changed.After the completion of VI training, discrimination training was begun. For all Ss a light of 550 millimicrons was the positive stimulus, and a light of 570 millimicrons was the negative. Reinforcement for responding to the positive stimulus followed the VI schedule previously used. The positive and negative stimuli were presented according to a prearranged random order. Fifteen 60-second intervals of SD and fifteen of SI were presented each day. These thirty presentations comprised three blocks of ten; and within each block,

show abstract

“…Finally, the literature on discriminative stimulus control suggests that the minute-by-minute procedure may be best. Honig , Thomas , and Guttman (1959) used two closely spaced wavelength s and contrasted the effects of massed reinforced training on S + followed by massed extinction on S -with those obtained with the normal within-session random alternation method. The former procedure yielded poor discriminative performance and no peak shifts, whereas the latter yielded excellent discriminative performance and peak shifts , suggesting the need for sub-…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Conditional discrimination learning by pigeons: The role of training paradigms

Thomas

Goldberg

1985

Bull. Psychon. Soc.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Three groups of pigeons (n = 8) learned a successive discrimination, 538-nm S+ versus 576-nm S-, in one context, say , houselight and tone, and the reversal in another context, say , dark and noise. In Group 1, the single reversal paradigm was used ; for Group 2, the problems alternated daily; and for Group 3, they alternated minute by minute. Wavelength generalization gradients obtained in both contexts revealed conditional control by context, which was weakest in Group 3.Conditional discrimination learning refers to a situation in which the (positive or negative) value of a particular stimulus depends on the other stimulus or stimuli with which it is combined. Pigeons typically learn conditional discriminations in operant free-response situations only with great difficulty and after extensive training (Boneau & Honig, 1964;Richards, 1979). In a study by Thomas, McKelvie, Ranney , and Moye (1981), however, such learning was achieved very rapidly. Pigeons first acquired a successive wavelength discrimination and then its reversal, each in a different physical context (e.g. , houselight and tone , HL T, dark and noise, HL N). The subjects were then tested for generalization in each context, and every gradient peaked at the appropriate S + value, that is, that of the S + trained in that context.Both the procedure and the conditional stimuli used by Thomas et al. (1981) differ from those previously used , and which of these factors accounts for the results that were obtained needs to be determined. Thomas, McKelvie, and Mah (1985) found that the auditory component of HL T played no role in the effectiveness of the compound . They also showed that striped versus plain walls were effective conditional cues, whereas background key color did not gain conditional control over a line angle discrimination in the single reversal paradigm. They suggested that pigeons may use global visual cues to identify the place in which food is obtained and may be predisposed to associate such place cues with the learning that occurred in those locations.The present study investigates the temporal factors that may affect operant free-response conditional discrimination learning. With regard to the alternation of training conditions, the single reversal paradigm is at one end of a continuum. At the other end is the typical procedure in which the cues alternate on a minute-by-minute basis (cf. Boneau & Honig, 1964;Richards , 1979). Intermediate between these extremes is conditional serial discrimination reversal learning (CSDR ) as used by Thomas and McKelvie (1982). In their study, a wavelength discrimiRequests for reprintsshouldbe addressed to David R. Thomas, Department of Psychology, Campus Box 345, University of Colorado. Boulder. CO 80309. nation and its reversal were presented on alternate days, with a different line angle accompanying each problem. The birds learned the conditional relationship, and after approximately 30 days of training, they began each session by responding appropriately even before the first reinforcer had bee...

show abstract

Differential effects of continuous extinction and discrimination training on the generalization gradient.

Cited by 65 publications

References 11 publications

CONTRAST, GENERALIZATION, AND THE PROCESS OF DISCRIMINATION¹

CONTRAST, GENERALIZATION, AND THE PROCESS OF DISCRIMINATION¹

Stimulus Generalization as a Function of the Time Between Training and Testing Procedures

Conditional discrimination learning by pigeons: The role of training paradigms

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Differential effects of continuous extinction and discrimination training on the generalization gradient.

Cited by 65 publications

References 11 publications

CONTRAST, GENERALIZATION, AND THE PROCESS OF DISCRIMINATION1

CONTRAST, GENERALIZATION, AND THE PROCESS OF DISCRIMINATION1

Stimulus Generalization as a Function of the Time Between Training and Testing Procedures

Conditional discrimination learning by pigeons: The role of training paradigms

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

CONTRAST, GENERALIZATION, AND THE PROCESS OF DISCRIMINATION¹

CONTRAST, GENERALIZATION, AND THE PROCESS OF DISCRIMINATION¹