Effects of conditioned-stimulus familiarization on instrumental learning in children

Cantor, Gordon N.; Cantor, Joan H.

doi:10.1016/0022-0965(64)90008-6

Cited by 28 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…An analysis of the release-speed measure clearly indicated that the familiarization effect had been replicated (see Figure 1). Consistent with previous familiarization effect demonstrations in children (Cantor & Cantor, 1964, 1965Kraut, 1976;Witte & Cantor, 1967;Smothergill & Kraut, Note 1), an effect was found for stimulus type, F(l, 19) = 6.57, p < .025, and the interaction of Stimulus Type X Trial Block was not significant, F(4, 76) = .66. The effect of trial block was not significant.…”

Section: Release Speedsupporting

confidence: 89%

“…under all the following variations: (a) colored lights or buzzer stimuli (Cantor & Cantor, 1964); (b) simple and choice reaction time tests (Bogartz & Witte, 1966;Cantor & Cantor, 1965); (c) passive observation or contingent responding during familiarization (Bogartz & Witte, 1966) ; and (d) response occurrence to stimulus onset and offset (Witte & Cantor, 1967). Also, a stimulus presented as often as a second one but for longer durations is responded to more slowly than the second one (Witte, 1967).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A two-factor theory of stimulus-repetition effects.

Kraut¹,

Smothergill²

1978

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is a well-documented finding that children respond more slowly to a stimulus that has been presented repeatedly just before test than to a novel stimulus. The effect, for which a two-factor theory has recently been proposed, did not occur in the only previous study of adults using a comparable procedure. Experiment 1 demonstrated the effect with adults. The previous negative finding may have been the result of too few repetitions of the stimulus. Experiment 2 provided additional support for the two-factor theory. The theory suggests that the effect is the net result of partially counteracting changes in two attentional processes. One process, the alertness elicited by a stimulus, is held to decrease as a result of repeated presentation of the stimulus, while the second process, encoding, is facilitated. The hypothesis tested in Experiment 2 was that the alertness decrement dissipates over a brief passage of time, while the facilitation of encoding does not. Subjects exposed to a repeatedly presented color were tested either immediately thereafter or after a 15-min or 30-min interval. As predicted, the observed effect shifted from one of flower response to one of faster response to the repeated stimulus as the delay interval increased.

show abstract

Section: Release Speedsupporting

confidence: 89%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A two-factor theory of stimulus-repetition effects.

Kraut¹,

Smothergill²

1978

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The significant SFE result is consistent with the findings of other investigations (Bogartz & Witte, 1966;Cantor & Cantor, 1964, 1965, 1966Witte, 1967;Witte & Cantor, 1967). Further inspection of the data indicated that speeds to the NS decreased only from the first to the second trial block, whereas, speeds to the FS decreased over all four trial blocks.…”

supporting

confidence: 92%

“…This phase is followed by a motor task in which S responds to the onset of either the familiarized stimulus (FS) or a nonfamiliarized stimulus (NS) not presented in the familiarization phase. A stimulus familiarization effect (SFE), indicated by faster response speeds to the NS than to the FS, has been consistently demonstrated in both single and differential response tasks (e.g., Bogartz & Witte, 1966;Cantor & Cantor, 1964, 1965, 1966. Cantor & Cantor (1965) present a habituation hypothesis for the SFE.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Stimulus intensity and familiarization effects on simple RT performance in children

Miller

Moffat

1968

Psychon Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A paradigm used to examine the effects of familiarization on response speeds in chiidrell involves the repeated presentation of a stimulus to which S attends or also responds during a familiarization phase. This phase is followed by a motor task in which S responds to the onset of either the familiarized stimulus (FS) or a nonfamiliarized stimulus (NS) not presented in the familiarization phase. A stimulus familiarization effect (SFE), indicated by faster response speeds to the NS than to the FS, has been consistently demonstrated in both single and differential response tasks (e.g., Bogartz & Witte, 1966;Cantor & Cantor, 1964, 1965, 1966. Cantor & Cantor (1965) present a habituation hypothesis for the SFE. Attending responses may habituate to the FS during the familiarization phase. Consequently, in the motor task phase Ss may show greater habituation to the FS, and hence slower speeds to the FS than to the NS. Thompson & Spencer (1966) maintain that the weaker the stimulus, the more rapid and/or more pronounced is habituation for most types of responses, whereas intense stimuli may yield no significan t habitua tion.One purpose of the present study was to investigate the effects of stimulus intensity on response speeds in both the familiarization and two-stimulus reaction phases. The above hypotheses in combination suggest that in the familiarization phase, the decrement in response speed over trials would be least for the High intensity group, more for the Medium intensity group, and most for the Low intensity group. In the two-stimulus reaction phase, the differences in speed of responding to the FS and NS would be smallest for the High intensity group, intermediate for the Medium intensity group, and largest for the Low intensity group. These effects would be evidenced in a Stimulus Intensity by Trial Block interaction in a familiarization phase analysis and a SFE by Intensity interaction in a two-stimulus RT phase analysis.The change effect (CE) was of additional interest. The CE is characterized by faster response speeds on trials involving a change of stimulus from the previous trial (Le., NS following FS and FS following NS) than on trials involving no change of stimulus (Le., NS following NS and FS following FS). Positive evidence for the CE has been obtained when a differential motor response is required and when, in addition, the stimulus sequences have involved predominantly more change than nonchange trials (Bogartz & Witte, 1966, Experiment 2;Cantor & Cantor, 1965, 1966. The CE has not been demonstrated in either a simple RT (Bogartz & Witte, 1966, Experiment I) or a lever pulling task (e.g., Witte, 1967), in which S is required to make the same motor response to the NS and FS. The second purpose of this study was to further investigate whether a CE could be obtained in a simple RT task.Psychon. Sci., 1968, Vol. 13 (6) METHOD The Ss were 20 four-year-old children enrolled in the University of South Dakota Nursery School and 43 five-and six-year-old children from Austin Elementary School, Vermillio...

show abstract

“…The effect also has been demonstrated, weakly, in adult humans (Perlmuter, 1966), in adolescents (Sokolov, 1963, pp. 247-249), and in children (Cantor & Cantor, 1964).…”

mentioning

confidence: 97%