Effects of extradimensional discrimination training upon previously acquired stimulus control

Honig, Werner K.

doi:10.1016/0023-9690(74)90033-2

Cited by 7 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Variants of this procedure have been used to study the effects of extradimensional discrimination training when it precedes dimensional acquisition (Honig, 1969), is concurrent with such acquisition (Wagner, 1969), or is con-ducted afterwards (Honig, 1974;Turner & Mackintosh, 1972). Generally, test results have been similar to those observed by Honig (1969).…”

Section: Extradimensional Discrimination Training and Generalizationmentioning

confidence: 85%

“…For example, the finding that generalization gradients become lower in height and steeper in slope during prolonged testing in extinction (Friedman & Guttman, 1965;Hoffman Sc Fleshler, 1961) can best be accounted for by criteria which grow increasingly strict. A similar argument might explain the fact that gradients along one dimension become steeper following discrimination training along an orthogonal dimension (Honig, 1969(Honig, , 1974Turner & Mackintosh, 1972). D. Blough (1969a) has extended this sort of analysis to show how gradient summation following training with two reinforced wavelengths can be predicted.…”

Section: Stimulus Generalization As a Psychophysical Problemmentioning

confidence: 89%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Legacy of Guttman and Kalish (1956): 25 Years of Research on Stimulus Generalization

Honig

Urcuioli

1981

J Exper Analysis Behavior

267

187

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper is a selective review of the methods, problems, and findings in the area of operant stimulus generalization over the 25 years since the publication of the original paper by Guttman and Kalish (1956) on discriminability and spectral generalization in the pigeon. The paper falls into five main sections, which encompass the main themes and problems stemming from the Guttman and Kalish work and its immediate successors. The first section addresses the relationship between stimulus generalization and stimulus control, as well as the variety of testing procedures and dependent variables used to measure generalization. The next section reviews the limited literature on the effects of early rearing on the generalization gradient. The relationship between discriminability among test stimuli and the slope of the spectral gradient is discussed in the third section, with emphasis upon recent reassessments of the pigeon's hue discriminability function. The fourth section reviews the topic of inhibitory stimulus control, one which developed with the discovery of the peak shift following intradimensional discrimination training. Problems of definition and measurement are discussed in conjunction with the gradient forms used to index inhibitory control. The last section is devoted to attentional effects and the two principal theories postulated to account for them. A survey of different attentional paradigms is provided and the possible role of constant irrelevant stimuli as a source of control is examined. A brief conclusion summarizes the contribution of the generalization technique toward an understanding of the nature and acquisition of stimulus control.

show abstract

Section: Extradimensional Discrimination Training and Generalizationmentioning

confidence: 85%

Section: Stimulus Generalization As a Psychophysical Problemmentioning

confidence: 89%

The Legacy of Guttman and Kalish (1956): 25 Years of Research on Stimulus Generalization

Honig

Urcuioli

1981

J Exper Analysis Behavior

267

187

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The findings of a retroactive TO enhancement effect by Turner and Mackintosh (1972) and a parallel finding of a retroactive PO flattening effect by Honig (1974) have important implications for the general attention position, which we can only touch upon here. In its original conception, general attention was a learning construct; i.e., experience with TO training presumably led subjects to be more attentive to, and thus learn more about, subsequently experienced stimuli.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 77%

Effects of discrimination training on stimulus generalization in pigeons: Role of resistance to extinction and response-produced stimuli

Thomas

Hickis

Jackson

et al. 1979

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In Experiment 1, two groups (n = 10) of pigeons received 17 sessions of TD (true discrimination) or ND (nondifferential) training with line angles. Seventeen sessions of SS (single stimulus) training with a wavelength preceded this training and two followed it. Subsequent wavelength generalization testing in extinction revealed a sharper TD than ND gradient. This slope difference was evident from the very first test stimulus presentation and remained stable throughout testing. As a consequence of substantial overtraining, there was no reduction of response strength and no sharpening of generalization during testing for either group. In Experiment 2, two groups (n = 16) of pigeons received 10 sessions of TD or PD (pseudodiscrimination] training with line angles, followed by four sessions of SS training with a single wavelength. During this training and in subsequent wavelength generalization testing in extinction, brief blackouts separated stimulus presentations. Again, the TD group yielded the sharper gradient. Although responding weakened and the gradients sharpened during the test, these effects were comparable in the two groups. Furthermore, gradients based on the percentage of trials with at least one response showed the same TD-PD slope difference. This finding indicates that differential control over responding by responseproduced feedback is inadequate to account for the TD-PD difference in generalization slope. Both experiments indicate that a purported difference in resistance to extinction is also an inadequate explanation.301 Honig (1969) was the first to demonstrate that "extradimensional" discrimination training with one pair of stimuli may enhance the control gained subsequently by an entirely different stimulus. Honig trained one group of pigeons on a discrimination between different key colors (Group TD, for true discrimination), A second group (Group PD, for pseudodiscrimination) received the same sequence of stimuli, uncorrelated with reinforcement. Both groups were then reinforced for pecking at a set of vertical lines on the response key and finally received a generalization test, in extinction, along the dimension of line orientation. The TD group showed a significantly steeper angularity generalization gradient. Similar findings have been reported by many other investigators (e.g., Bresnahan, 1970; Mackintosh & Honig, 1970;Thomas, Freeman, Svinicki, Burr, & Lyons, 1970.) This research was supported by research grants from NICHD (HD-03486) and NSF (BNS78-01407) to David R. Thomas. C. F. Hickis is now at Weber State College, Ogden, Utah. Requests for reprints should be addressed to: Dr. David R. Thomas, Department of Psychology, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 80309.Copyright 1979 Psychonomic Society, Inc. interpreted the TD-PD generalization slope difference as evidence for a process of "general attentiveness." They proposed that discrimination training in which one stimulus dimension is predictive of reinforcement will enhance attention to other stimulus dimensions which are not...

show abstract

“…Although "general attention" was originally conceived of as a learning construct in the sense that it affects what is learned about subsequently experienced stimuli (cf. Thomas, 1970), experiments reported by Honig (1974) and Turner and Mackintosh (1972) demanded an extension of this conceptualization by showing that extradimensional discrimination and nondifferential training can influence (in the expected direction) the control exercised by a previously experienced stimulus. This finding is not inconsistent with the basic assertion that a TD or ND training experience will produce some effects that are nonspecific with regard to the training stimuli or the stimulus dimension involved in that training.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Proactive interference in the retention of “attentional sets” in pigeons

Thomas

Burr

Vogt

1982

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In Experiment I, six groups of pigeons (n=8) were tested for wavelength generalization either immediately or 24 h after learning a successive discrimination, with 550 nm reinforced and a black vertical line extinguished. The groups differed in the stimulus present during single stimulus pretraining, which was 550 nm (pretrain S+), the vertical line (pretrain 8-), or a neutral dim white light (pretrain Sn), respectively. The three immediate generalization gradients were steep and indistinguishable, reflecting only the immediately preceding discrimination training condition. The three delay gradients were flatter, with the flattening particularly marked in the pretrain S-group. This was interpreted as proactive interference (PI) resulting from the memory that both the 550-nm and the line stimuli had previously been reinforced. In Experiment 2, two (TD) groups of pigeons (n=16) were given single stimulus training with a 555-nm keylight followed by eight sessions of discrimination training with two line angles, then one session of nondifferential (ND) training with the same two lines, and then a wavelength generalization test either immediately or after a 24-h delay. Two other (hold) groups (n=16) received similar training, except for the TD line angle training sessions. in these hold groups, the wavelength gradient was flatter in a delayed test; in the TD groups it was steeper, indicating PI from the prior TD training. These two experiments suggest that the "attentional sets," which purportedly result from TD and ND training, may fruitfully be viewed as target memories subject to the principles of interference theory.

show abstract

Effects of extradimensional discrimination training upon previously acquired stimulus control

Cited by 7 publications

References 13 publications

The Legacy of Guttman and Kalish (1956): 25 Years of Research on Stimulus Generalization

The Legacy of Guttman and Kalish (1956): 25 Years of Research on Stimulus Generalization

Effects of discrimination training on stimulus generalization in pigeons: Role of resistance to extinction and response-produced stimuli

Proactive interference in the retention of “attentional sets” in pigeons

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About