Information in the behavior stream

Horner, John M.

doi:10.1016/s0376-6357(02)00043-8

Cited by 2 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The most obvious application of stored information is as a way to quantify the structure of response sequences (Horner, ), and can potentially play a similar role to the conditional U ‐value when applied in this way. In general, events further in the past (i.e.…”

Section: Entropy As a Descriptive Statisticmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although there has been little direct application of information theory to the topic of operant responding (although see Cantor & Wilson, ; Frick & Miller, ; Horner, ), many experimental results suggest that such analyses would enhance our understanding. Our approach here is to illustrate this by asking the question, “What are the measurable sources of information that reliably permit a prediction to be made about responding?”…”

Section: Operant Conditioningmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Information: Theory, brain, and behavior

Jensen

Ward

Balsam

2013

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the 65 years since its formal specification, information theory has become an established statistical paradigm, providing powerful tools for quantifying probabilistic relationships. Behavior analysis has begun to adopt these tools as a novel means of measuring the interrelations between behavior, stimuli, and contingent outcomes. This approach holds great promise for making more precise determinations about the causes of behavior and the forms in which conditioning may be encoded by organisms. In addition to providing an introduction to the basics of information theory, we review some of the ways that information theory has informed the studies of Pavlovian conditioning, operant conditioning, and behavioral neuroscience. In addition to enriching each of these empirical domains, information theory has the potential to act as a common statistical framework by which results from different domains may be integrated, compared, and ultimately unified.

show abstract

Section: Entropy As a Descriptive Statisticmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Operant Conditioningmentioning

confidence: 99%

Information: Theory, brain, and behavior

Jensen

Ward

Balsam

2013

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is possible in this commentary to provide only the merest hint of the full range of views on the difference between local and global analyses. To gain greater perspective, in order to reduce possible distorting effects of just my view, a reader might wish to consult diverse examples, a few of which include Baum (1994Baum ( , 1995Baum ( , 2001Baum ( , 2002Cleaveland (1999); Dinsmoor (2001); Hawkes and Shimp (1998); Herrnstein (1961Herrnstein ( , 1970; Herrnstein and Vaughan (1980); Heyman and Tanz (1995); Hineline (2001); Hineline, Silberberg, Ziriax, Timberlake, and Vaughan (1987); Staddon (1983a, 1983b); Horner (2002) ;Horner, Staddon, and Lozano (1997);MacDonall (1998MacDonall ( , 2000; Nevin (1969); Peele, Casey, and Silberberg (1984); Rachlin (1994Rachlin ( , 2000; Rachlin and Laibson (1997) ;Reed, Soh, Hildebrandt, DeJongh, and Shek, (2000); Reid, Chadwick, Duhham, and Miller (2001); Shimp (1966Shimp ( , 1976bShimp ( , 1992; Silberberg and Ziriax (1985); Silva, Pear, Tait, and Forest (1996); Staddon (1964Staddon ( , 1968Staddon ( , 2001Vaughan (1981); Wearden and Clark (1989);…”

Section: Features Of Local and Global Analyses: Do They Define A Paramentioning

confidence: 99%

Scientific Peer Review: A Case Study From Local and Global Analyses

Shimp

2004

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The dialog between Staddon (2001, 2004) and Baum (2004) raises general questions about the nature of scientific peer review. Their dialog displays effects on peer review of differences of opinion about the relative merits of local and global analyses. Baum (1995, 1997, 2001, 2002) favors global analyses as a paradigm different, newer, and better than the local, dynamic, real‐time approach that plays a significant role in Staddon (2001). According to the Kuhnian perspective (Kuhn, 1996) Baum advocates, we can better understand his review of Staddon (2001) by considering the implications for it of his commitment to the idea that a global analysis is a superior scientific paradigm. This commentary examines some characteristics of local and global analyses, as well as some of their possible implications for peer review in the context of a reviewer's belief in the Kuhnian idea of incommensurability: According to this idea, a reviewer who either is, or who believes he is, from one paradigm is unlikely, for better or worse, to understand or perhaps even tolerate work from a different paradigm. It is recommended that a process be developed to encourage “truth in peer reviewing” to reduce possible conflicts of interest embedded in the current conception of scientific peer review.

show abstract

Information in the behavior stream

Cited by 2 publications

References 24 publications

Information: Theory, brain, and behavior

Information: Theory, brain, and behavior

Scientific Peer Review: A Case Study From Local and Global Analyses

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About