Learning-set formation in the squirrel monkey.

Miles, Raymond C.

doi:10.1037/h0046356

Cited by 53 publications

(44 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Mean Trial 2 performance during the last problem block of the experiment was 73% correct. This result is quite similar to that found in mynas, as well as terminal Trial 2 performance in squirrel monkeys (Miles, 1957) and marmosets (Miles & Meyer, 1956). …”

Section: Methodssupporting

confidence: 78%

Object-discrimination learning set and hypothesis behavior in the northern bluejay (Cynaocitta cristata)

Hunter

Kamil

1971

Psychon Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Methodssupporting

confidence: 78%

Object-discrimination learning set and hypothesis behavior in the northern bluejay (Cynaocitta cristata)

Hunter

Kamil

1971

Psychon Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The slopes were calculated from published data, with the hypothetical starting point of 0 trials, 50% correct trial 2 responses; or chance. It should be noted that although Sh e l l and R io p e l l e [35] used different procedures for their squirrel monkeys than did M iles [23], the slopes when rounded to two significant figures, are identical for both studies.…”

Section: Learning Setsmentioning

confidence: 92%

Comparative Investigation of the Relationship between Cerebral Indices and Learning Abilities

Riddell

Corl

1977

Brain Behav Evol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Indices of cerebral development were computed for 23 different species in order to assess their capacity to accurately reflect differences in learning ability. The resulting correlations between index values and performance on a variety of tasks strongly suggest that this approach may offer the best type of continuum for the comparative study of learning. It was further suggested that if the index proposed by Jerison were expanded to reflect possible neuronal connections, a more powerful measure might be obtained.

show abstract

“…In a specific comparison, Green did not differ from the other dimensions. These general results for the Latin square analysis of variance were not unexpected, since the stimulus dimensions had been chosen to be relatively comparable, and since this species is not noted for rapid learning-to-learn (Harlow, 1959;Miles, 1957).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Concept learning with one relevant dimension in the squirrel monkey

Wells

Deffenbacher

1966

Psychon Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sixteen squirrel monkeys learned four discriminations in a procedure patterned on human concept learning (CL) , 1948) have used procedures such as sequences of 6-trial object discriminations. But in the typical human CL study, Sis given a different stimulus on each trial, and the whole array is specified by known relevant and irrelevant dimensions. The present study is an initial demonstration of CL in a convenient primate using procedures similar to those in human studies. MethodSs were .16 female squirrel monkeys maintained at 90% ad lib weight.The apparatus was a manually-operated WGT A with two Kluver-type pull-in carts replacing the single tray. In action, the carts were placed 7·in.apart, 14 in. from the animals, and the cord from each cart was tied to a ring just outside the bars ofS's compartment. A movable stimulus block covered the reward cup on each cart.Stimuli were mounted on the face of a 2 x 2 in. wood block, and represented all 81 combinations of size (large, medium, small); shape (triangle, circle, square); color of background (green, yellow, blue); and pattern within the figure (a cross, vertical stripes, crosshatching).In each discrimination problem, Ss were presented with a choice between two stimuli on each of 36 trials per day, in a non-correction procedure. Positive and negative stimuli were randomly paired, and correct side was randomized with a restriction of three consecutive placements on the right or left cart. A criterion of 15 out of 18 consecutive correct responses was used.Ss learned four discriminations in a series of nonreversal shifts. In each case there was one relevant and three irrelevant dimensions. Thefirstproblemalso served as a shaping task, in which the choices were made successively more complex by the addition of irrelevant dimensions. The positive cues in the four problems were Small, Circle, Stripes, and Green. A Latin square ensured that problems were encountered in different orders.

show abstract

Learning-set formation in the squirrel monkey.

Cited by 53 publications

References 7 publications

Object-discrimination learning set and hypothesis behavior in the northern bluejay (Cynaocitta cristata)

Object-discrimination learning set and hypothesis behavior in the northern bluejay (Cynaocitta cristata)

Comparative Investigation of the Relationship between Cerebral Indices and Learning Abilities

Concept learning with one relevant dimension in the squirrel monkey

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About