Discrimination learning theory: Uniprocess vs. duoprocess.

Harlow, Harry F.; Hicks, Leslie

doi:10.1037/h0040181

Cited by 71 publications

(40 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…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

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

show abstract

“…Monkeys are most conveniently trained on a somato-sensory discrimination in a standard Wisconsin-type General Training Apparatus (Harlow and Hicks, 1957 …”

Section: Methods I and Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…I n an important recent paper Harlow and Hicks (1957) present evidence in favour of the uniprocess conception of simultaneous two-choice learning in monkeys. They also consider what the nature of this unitary mechanism might be.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 95%

Discrimination Learning Theory: Excitatory vs. Inhibitory Tendencies in Monkeys

Ettlinger

1960

Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Apparently, the group differences were not attributable to differences in choice strategies learned by the monkeys during successive reversals of the Harlow and Hicks (1957) devised the procedure of the information trial They attempted to test uniprocess and duoprocess theories of learning by introducing the trial before the start of each problem of discrimination learning-set training Motoyoshi (1962). also addressing the same problem, applied it to the discriminationreversal learning-set training two-key choice task.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of two types of information trials on the formation of a discrimination‐reversal learning set in Japanese monkeys

Komaki

1996

Jpn Psychol Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Three groups of male adult Japanese monkeys were trained in 30 discriminationreversal learning-set (LS) problems using the Wisconsin General Test Apparatus. A control group ( N = 3) was trained in the standard procedure: acquisition of up to 12 consecutive correct responses, reversal to the same criterion, and then shift to a new problem. To the other two groups, three information trials signaling the stimulus value in reversal were given after they reached the criterion in acquisition. Subjects in the positive-stimulus information (PSI) group ( N = 4) were exposed only to the reversal positive stimulus, and a response to it was rewarded. Subjects in the negative-stimulus information (NSI) group ( N = 4) were exposed only to the reversal negative stimulus, and any response to it was not rewarded. Information trials reduced reversal errors and NSI trials were more effective than PSI trials in error reduction ( p < ,051. Information trials also aided in acquisition: the NSI and PSI groups learned the acquisition phase of the problems with significantly fewer errors than control group ( p < .01) in the last stage of training. The implications of these results are discussed in relation to strategy learning and attention learning in LS formation.Key words: learning-set formation, discrimination reversal, strategy learning, attention learning, Japanese monkeys.Komaki (1977, 1984, 1991) investigated the effects of information trials on transfer to new problems in Japanese monkeys. In these studies, Japanese monkeys were trained to choose one of two stimuli in a successive discrimination-reversal paradigm (see also Schusterman, 1964). In the first phase of the experiment, one stimulus was arbitrarily defined as positive and the other as negative, and monkeys were trained to discriminate them until they reached a performance criterion. The positive stimulus then became negative and the negative stimulus positive. After regaining the performance criterion, the functions were reversed again. These reversals were repeated 50-60 times. Information trials, either positivestimulus information (PSI) trials or negativestimulus information (NSI) trials, were given

show abstract

Discrimination learning theory: Uniprocess vs. duoprocess.

Cited by 71 publications

References 6 publications

Assessment of the relative importance of S+ and S− in rats, using intercurrent simultaneous and successive discriminations

Assessment of the relative importance of S+ and S− in rats, using intercurrent simultaneous and successive discriminations

Discrimination Learning Theory: Excitatory vs. Inhibitory Tendencies in Monkeys

Influence of two types of information trials on the formation of a discrimination‐reversal learning set in Japanese monkeys

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About