Feedback Effects on Sequential Ordering in Humans

Abstract

Under various feedback conditions, 38 college undergraduates were asked to rearrange abstract graphic characters on a computer screen, placing them in arbitrarily designated "correct" sequences. Two sets of seven horizontally arrayed stimuli were used. In Experiment 1, subjects in Group 1 learned to arrange the first set under Selection Feedback in which a "+" appeared above each character after it was selected in the correct order and to arrange the second set under Order Feedback in which a correct response produced a copy of the character in its correct ordinal position at the top of the screen. For Group 2 the order of these conditions was reversed. In Experiment 2, for subjects in Group 3, correct responses produced neither of these types of feedback. Subjects in Group 4 received Order Feedback only until the first set was correctly ordered once. Order Feedback was more effective than Selection Feedback during initial acquisition of the first set but not during maintenance; no differences were found for the second set. Only 2 of 9 subjects successfully put the characters in correct sequential order under the No Feedback condition. When, in Experiment 2, Order Feedback was eliminated after the first correctly arranged sequence, the steady-state criteria were met more slowly than in Experiment 1.Key words: feedback, sequential ordering, sequential behavior patterns, human adultsThe effects of "feedback" have been a recurrent topic in psychology. Feedback is sometimes argued to be different than reinforcement, with its effectiveness said to be dependent, at least in part, on the amount of "information" it contains (Comstock & Chumbley, 1973;Thorndike, 1927;Trowbridge & Cason, 1932). Such information is commonly, if somewhat loosely, defined with respect to judging responses as correct or incorrect. As Parsons (1982) stated, however, "It is not clear how, if at all, the amount of information in information-feedback determines control over later responding" (p. 14). He explained that reinforcement may differ from feedback, but noted that there has been little research attempting to examine this issue (see also Peterson, 1982).Various forms of feedback have been shown to affect sequential characteristics of operant behavior (e.g., Boren & Devine, 1968;Richardson & Warzak, 1981;Vaughan, 1985). Hence, the effects of different types of feedback might be assessed with respect to that dimension of behavior. Sequential ordering consists Reprints may be obtained from S. M. Deitz, Department of Educational Foundations, Georgia State University, University Plaza, Atlanta, Georgia 30303. of learning to respond to a set of continuously available stimuli in what the experimenter has determined is a "correct" sequence. Investigations of sequential ordering have used a variety of feedback conditions to establish and maintain correct sequences of four keylight colors with pigeons and of seven abstract computer graphic characters with humans. These feedback conditions differed in the several studies; one dimension along which th...

The Effects of Diazepam and Triazolam on Repeated Acquisition and Performance of Response Sequences With an Observing Response

“…In fact, these findings may suggest that the stimuli dependent on observing responses generally were unrelated to the percentage of errors in the performance component. These results are consistent with previous research demonstrating that removal of these stimuli after the acquisition of a sequence (i.e., performance) did not affect the percentage of errors (Deitz et al, 1987;Straub et al, 1979).…”

“…For example, removal of the responsedependent stimulus presentations after the acquisition of a sequence (i.e., performance) did not alter accuracy of responding by pigeons or humans. These findings suggest that the response-dependent stimuli were not functionally related to accuracy with performance baselines (Deitz et al 1987;Straub, Seidenberg, Bever, & Terrance, 1979). The reasons for this discrepancy are unknown.…”

Transdermal interpretation of the subject matter of behavior analysis.

“…A two-term contingency can also relate the omission of an act to a consequence, as in the differential reinforcement of other behavior. A consequence can follow a sequence of operations, as in sequential ordering tasks (e.g., Deitz et al, 1987), and therefore need not be contiguous with each separate act that the contingency requires. Furthermore, postcedents can depend on elapsed time independent of acts (e.g., Wagner & Morris, 1987), and the rate of acts can determine the rate (e.g., Herrnstein & Hineline, 1966) or intensity (e.g., Lindsley, 1970) of consequences.…”