Latency patterns in category Judgments

Abstract

animals were able to do so. Examination of the effect of type of cue redundancy during the initial discrimination training revealed that the opposite-trained animals were more distracted than the same-trained animals during the switch test trials. A significant proportion of same animals, 13 out of 16, correctly utilized door cues (p = .01), while only half of the opposite-trained rats were able to do so. For individual drive groups, the

Voluntary stimulus generalization as a three-category judgment process

“…Soc., 1973, Vol. 1 (lB) values closest to the boundaries (125 and 150 g) are also associated with the longest latencies in this study could be interpreted as consistent with McGuirk's (1971) hypothesis. A procedure in which the critical region is sampled more adequately, e.g., an increase in the number of test stimuli, is needed before an understanding of the latency patterns can be reached.…”

“…1) can be made in terms of this three-category model. McGuirk (1971) has suggested a simple explanation for the latency data in situations where stimuli are to be categorized: Stimuli which fall close to category boundaries should be associated with long latencies, while stimuli far from category boundaries should be associated with short latencies. In a three-category judgment situation, then, an M-shaped function is predicted, with peaks at each of the two boundaries.…”