Hypothesis analysis of sameness-difference learning-set by capuchin monkeys

King, James E.; Fobes, James L.

doi:10.1016/0023-9690(75)90038-7

Cited by 16 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, Harlow (1959, p. 513) stated: "As these orderly but inappropriate responses are reduced, the percentage of errors diminishes progressively, and learning is said to take place." The present study, as well as those of King and Fobes (1975) and Smith, King, and Newberry (1976), showed a correspondence between random and correct responding during learning-set acquisition and suggest a more complex evolution of hypothesis strengths during learning-set acquisition than that envisioned by Harlow. Three distinct stages are apparently involved: First, elimination of systematic error-producing hypotheses, mainly position preference; second, a relatively high level of random responding; and third, the acquisition of the correct hypothesis.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 38%

“…The marked separation of learning and nonlearning subjects was also observed by King and Fobes (1975), who tested a different group of capuchin monkeys on sameness-difference learningset problems. Furthermore, the difference in the pattern of hypothesis manifestations between learning and nonlearning monkeys was the same in both experiments.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 91%

“…However, for other types of learning sets, such as oddity and sameness-difference, the positive and negative stimuli within a problem are not defined by any constant stimulus quality of the positive and negative stimulus but by the relationship either between the positive and negative stimuli, or between 1 he stimuli within the positive or negative complexes. King and Fobes (1975) demonstrated that capuchin monkeys could learn a sameness-difference learning set which required discrimination between simullaneously presented same (AA) and different (AB) object pairs with a new object combination appearing on each trial. Previously, King (1973) found that after learning a sameness-difference learning set, with the sameness pair (AA) positive, chimpanzees and organgutans preferred an AAB stimulus configuration over an ABA configuration.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…1965;King & Fobes, 1975) to the data. This technique allows measurement of both random and nonrandom response patterns during acquisition.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Learning and transposition of an extended sameness-difference concept by slow and fast learning capuchin monkeys

Scanlon

King

1976

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Capuchin monkeys were trained on a series of learning-set problems which required discrimination between stimulus arrays having ABA and BBA configurations. Transposition was later tested by presenting training configurations with CCC or ABC configurations. Considerable negative transposition and a small amount of positive transposition occurred, a result suggesting that the original learning set was based at least partly on perceived differences in the homogeneity of the ABA and BBA configurations. Fast-learning subjects manifested more persistent random responding and less position responding than did slow-learning subjects. This difference suggests that random responding during the initial stages of learning may be used as an index of attention.During the past 25 years, a highly diversified variety of learning sets have been demonstrated in learning research on nonhuman primates (French, 1965;Miles, 1965). For some varieties of learning sets, such as discrimination learning-set, the positive and negative stimulus within a given problem are differentiated by a constant difference in object quality. However, for other types of learning sets, such as oddity and sameness-difference, the positive and negative stimuli within a problem are not defined by any constant stimulus quality of the positive and negative stimulus but by the relationship either between the positive and negative stimuli, or between 1 he stimuli within the positive or negative complexes. King and Fobes (1975) demonstrated that capuchin monkeys could learn a sameness-difference learning set which required discrimination between simullaneously presented same (AA) and different (AB) object pairs with a new object combination appearing on each trial. Previously, King (1973) found that after learning a sameness-difference learning set, with the sameness pair (AA) positive, chimpanzees and organgutans preferred an AAB stimulus configuration over an ABA configuration. Conversely, after sameness-difference learning with the different (AB) pair positive, the apes preferred the ABA over the AAB configuration. Thus, although AAB and ABA configurations both contained two identical and one dissimilar element. the AAB configuration was apparently perceived by the apes as more homogeneous than the ABA configuration.The above results suggest the question of whether monkeys can learn a modified sameness-difference learning set based upon discriminations between two

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 38%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 91%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…1965;King & Fobes, 1975) to the data. This technique allows measurement of both random and nonrandom response patterns during acquisition.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Learning and transposition of an extended sameness-difference concept by slow and fast learning capuchin monkeys

Scanlon

King

1976

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Application of hypothesis analysis to data from two recent studies of sameness-difference learning-set in capuchin monkeys (King & Fobes, 1975;Scanlon & King, Note 1) revealed an interesting difference between fast and slow learners similar to the difference be.tween experimental and contral subjects in the study described here. Fast-learning subjects exhibited higher random responding than slow-learning subjects, and the high random responding decreased only when the monkeys began to show a considerable amount of correct responding.…”

Section: Daysmentioning

confidence: 98%