Effects of interrun interval on serial learning

Haggbloom, Steven J.; Ekdahl, Michael W.

doi:10.3758/bf03213372

Cited by 8 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We also employed a 1O-15-sec IRI, but our subjects received only two pattern repetitions each day, separated by a 15-min IT!. Under some conditions, serial learning is facilitated by a short IRI, but the available evidence suggests that neither a short IRI nor four daily pattern repetitions are necessary conditions for rule learning (Haggbloom & Ekdahl, 1985;Roitblat, Pologe, & Scopatz, 1983).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Serial anticipation and pattern extrapolation in rats as a function of element discriminability

Haggbloom

Brooks

1985

Animal Learning & Behavior

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In Experiment 1, three groups of rats were trained on one of three serial patterns consisting of different numbers of .045-g food pellets, either the simple strong monotonic pattern 14-7-3-1-0 (Group SM) or one of two complex weak monotonic patterns, 14-5-5-1-0 (Group 5-5) or 14-9-1-1-0 (Group 1-1). Learning to anticipate the terminal O-pellet element occurred faster in Group 1-1 than in Group SM, which in turn learned faster than Group 5-5. In Experiment 2, Groups SM, 5-5, and 1-1 were trained on the first four elements of the patterns experienced by their Experiment 1 counterparts and then were tested for their ability to extrapolate the series to include the addition of a O-pellet element in the fifth position. Extrapolation behavior was better in Group 1-1 than in Group SM, which in turn performed better than Group 5-5. The results were shown to be consistent with a memory-discrimination model of serial learning and inconsistent with a rule-learning model based on pattern complexity.Rats can learn to anticipate one or more elements of an ordered series of different numbers of .045-g food pellets. What is theoretically interesting is that some series are easier to learn than others. For example, Hulse and Dorsky (1977) reported faster learning of slow running in anticipation of nonreward, or 0 pellets, when that event terminated the strong monotonic (SM) series 14-7-3-1-0 than when it terminated the nonmonotonic (NM) series 14-1-3-7-0 or the weak monotonic (WM) series 14-5-5-1-0. Capaldi and Molina (1979), on the other hand, reported faster learning to anticipate 0 pellets in the NM pattern 1-29-0 than in the SM pattern 20-10-0, and better learning on the WM patterns 14-14-2-0 and 15-15-0-0 than on the SM pattern 15-10-5-0.Hulse (1978) hypothesized that rats induce a rule governing the formal structure of a pattern, the ease of anticipation learning being directly related to the simplicity of the rule. According to this view, the SM pattern can bedescribed by the relatively simple rule that each element (E) is smaller than the preceding element, that is, E(i) > E(i+ 1). The WM pattern 14-5-5-1-0, on the other hand, is defined by the rule(s) E(i) > E(i + 1) and E(2) = E(3) (Hulse & Dorsky, 1977). Discovering the rule E(i) > E(i + 1) is presumably easier than learning both that rule and the exception E(2) = E(3), and so the 14-7-3-1-0 series is learned faster than the 14-5-5-1-0 series.Capaldi (e.g., Capaldi & Molina, 1979;Capaldi, Verry, & Davidson, 1980a) has proposed a memory-discrimination learning model of serial learning in which the anticipatory mechanism is the signal value associated with the memory of one or more prior elements. Of very conThese experiments were supported by a Faculty

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Serial anticipation and pattern extrapolation in rats as a function of element discriminability

Haggbloom

Brooks

1985

Animal Learning & Behavior

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Rats trained on the 14-7-3-1-0 series employed here generally run relatively fast, and at about the same speed, to the first four elements of the series, and markedly slower to the terminal O-pellet element (e.g., Haggbloom & Brooks, 1985;Haggbloom & Ekdahl, 1985;Hulse & Dorsky, 1977). That pattern of behavior occurred here in Groups FN and FP, being more pronounced in Group FN.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 49%

Feature-negative effect in serial learning

Haggbloom

Sheppard

1986

Bull. Psychon. Soc.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In the Haggbloom and Ekdahl (1958) investigation there should have been a greater expectancy of large reward at the 4-5-min RI than at the 20-s RI, which (a) should have produced poorer tracking of 0 pellets at the longer RI and (b) should have reduced or eliminated tracking of 0 pellets on a shift from a shorter or a longer RI. This analysis does not explain why a shift in RI from longer to shorter eliminated tracking in the Haggbloom and Ekdahl (1985) investigation, but that may be related to other factors, such as what was learned under the 14-7-3-1-0 series. Below we consider what is learned under the 18-1-0 series we used, suggesting that at one trial each day the rat partitions the events of the 18-1-0 series on a qualitative basis independent of temporal considerations, something not possible when more than one trial is given each day.…”

mentioning

confidence: 77%

“…Two variables that have commanded considerable attention in delayed response tasks, such as delayed matching to sample, have been retention interval (RI) and intertrial interval (ITI; e.g., Roberts & Kraemer, 1982). In the present investigation we were concerned with the effects on tracking in a serial task of the RI and shifts in the RI and with how both of these effects might be affected by ITI. In two recent investigations the 0-pellet element of a 14-7-3-1 -0 series was better tracked when the RI was 10-15 s than when it was 4-5 min, and tracking was completely eliminated when the RI was shifted from 10-15 s to 4-5 min (Roitblat, Pologe, & Scopatz, 1983) or was shifted in either temporal direction (Haggbloom & Ekdahl, 1985). In the Roitblat et al (1983) investigation, tracking was not acquired at the 4-5-min RI within the 60 preshift trials employed.…”

mentioning

confidence: 95%

“…Both of these hypotheses assume that the effects on tracking of RIs and shifts in RI should be the same for all series and should be independent of whether one or more than one trial is given each day. Roitblat et al (1983) explicitly concluded that number of trials each day had no effect on tracking, and Haggbloom and Ekdahl (1985), who used two trials each day, simply ignored this variable. Our view is that the effects of RI and shifts in RI on tracking may depend critically on the type of series used as well as the ITI used.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Retention interval and intertrial interval in a serial learning or delayed discrimination task.

Capaldi¹,

Miller²,

Nawrocki³

1986

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In each of four experiments, rats were provided with the same three-event decreasing series (18-1-0) of 0.045-g food pellets in a runway. Tracking, running fast to 18 pellets and running slow to 1 and 0 pellets, was investigated as a function of the temporal interval elapsing between the events of the series (the retention interval), shifts in retention interval, and number of trials each day (or the intertrial interval), a trial being defined as presentation of each of the three events of the series. Neither retention interval, which varied from 15 s to 30 min in various investigations, nor shifts in retention interval affected tracking when only one trial was given each day. But when more than one daily trial was given, tracking was acquired more slowly and was disrupted by a shift in retention interval from 15 s to 5 min. Tracking was also disrupted by a shift from one to two trials each day. These results indicate that when given one 18-1-0 trial each day, the rat partitions events on a first-event/subsequent-event basis; that little forgetting occurs even at long retention intervals; that somewhat different memories signal events when one or more than one 18-1-0 trial occurs each day; and that retention interval deficits can arise owing to the same or similar memories' signaling different events. The results described limit the generality of three hypotheses suggested in two recent investigations: that as retention interval increases, rats find it increasingly difficult to remember and utilize serial position cues; that tracking in serial tasks is not influenced by number of trials each day; and that there are specific stimuli associated with each retention interval which, when changed, necessarily disrupt performance.

show abstract

Effects of interrun interval on serial learning

Cited by 8 publications

References 25 publications

Serial anticipation and pattern extrapolation in rats as a function of element discriminability

Serial anticipation and pattern extrapolation in rats as a function of element discriminability

Feature-negative effect in serial learning

Retention interval and intertrial interval in a serial learning or delayed discrimination task.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About