Response and feedback techniques for automated training of visual identification skills.

Weisz, A. Z.; McElroy, Linda S.

doi:10.1037/e427982004-001

Cited by 6 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Success was positively corielated with time spent on simple response to sound-label pairs and was negatively correlated with the proportion of time spent in active responding, receiving feedback and making second tri.es. Weisz and McElroy (1964) investigated the extent to which these results held for a visual task involving discrimination among three values for each of four dimensions of variation of unfamiliar forms. KR was made simple and was given while the signal was still prese-at.…”

Section: Iz How Does Kr Affect Sensitivity?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The Swets et al (1962; and Weisz and McElroy (1964) experiments have been mentioned in the disccssion on KR as illustrating the necessity of having signal samples clearly authenticated. The prompting technique enables the subject to see or hear what signal is being given the label, and to form the association between signal and label.…”

Section: 2mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Prompting has been found more effective than KR in paired-associate learning and perceptual learning might be regarded as an instance of paired-associate learning Gibson (1953b) suggested that the experiments on absolute pitch discrimination demonstrate the applicability of the same kind of learning theory as can be applied to paired associates. In the Swets et al (1962; and Weisz and McElroy (1964) experiments names had to be attached to large numbers of stimuli which the subjects had never tried to label in this way before. In these experiments prompting was better than, or at least equal to, KR.…”

Section: 3 Comparison Of Ki Andmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Swets (1962) and Swets, Harris, McElroy and Radloe (1964) found prompting techniques superior to overt responses followed by KR and concluded that strea p-.ining of the task and temporal contiguity of sound and label are important factors in effective txaining methods. A follow-up experiment by Weisz and McElroy (1964) found that when KR was made simpler and given during presentation of the signal then KR was not inferior to prompting. This would prevent the subject forgetting what the signal had been before it was identified and help him to attach the correct label to it.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Retrospective cuing was better than partial KR which would provide a similar sample of authenticated signals but would give poorer information on the signal distribution than retrospective cuirg. The differential effectiveness of these three training methods corresponds to the extent to which they give authenticated samples of the signal and information on the signal distribution.The Swets et al (1962; and Weisz and McElroy (1964) experiments have been mentioned in the disccssion on KR as illustrating the necessity of having signal samples clearly authenticated. The prompting technique enables the subject to see or hear what signal is being given the label, and to form the association between signal and label.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

The Use of Cuing in Training Tasks: Phase 2

Annett¹,

Paterson²

1966

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The report falls into three sections, a review of the literature on training for auditory tasks, an account of three experiments comparing ouing and knowledge of results as training techniques for a detection task, and the comparison of cuing and knowledge of results in an intensity discrimination task.The review of the literature indicates some disagreement on the kind and amount of improvement in simple auditory tasks. Some improvement is undoubtedly due to familiarisation with the mechanics of listening and responding.Some may be due to changes in response criterion and some may be due to a genuine sensitisation to the auditory signals.The variety of techniques and performance measures does not facilitate straight-forward generalisation, although it is reasonably clear that some kindsof training can be effective.Investigating a previous finding that cuing and knowledge of reoults affect response criterion differently, the subjects in a detection task were required to respond with three degrees of confidence.It was found that subjective confidence is not affected by training, but knowledge of results still produced more "risky" behaviour than cuing as defined by the distribution of detections and false positive responses.Investigating the hypothesis that this difference was due to the necessarily higher rate of responding in knowledge of results an experimentally controlled rate of responding reduced the difference but did not eliminate it.A "cuing" procedure with no signal presented atall led to performance similar to that under "genuine" cuing, suggesting that in this task signal distribution is primarily what is learned and not, as had been hypothesized, the nature of the signal.Post-training vigilance performance appeared not to differ for the two techniques.In fact neither group showed significant changes in detection or false positives over a half hour vigilance OOSSirY±.In the third section cuing, knowledge of results and reduced noise were compared in training intensity discrimination.In this case knowledge of results was effective, the other techniques not leading to improvement over five one-hour sessions.As in the detection task, however, cuing and knowledge of results were distinguished by increasing cautinn and increasing confidence respectively following training.Reproduction of this publication in whole or irn pai1: is permitted for any purpose of the United States Government. One of the critical needs of the Navy is to determine the "tr;ainable factors" in sonar and to learn how to optimally conduct such training.This study is the second phase of such an on-going program of oxperimentation. It is concerned primarily with the techniques of cuing and knowledge of results (KR) on a range of auditory detection and discrimination tasks.In the first phase of this program (Annett and Clarkson, 1964), cuing was found to be more effective than KR in an auditory signal detection task. However, in view of the past history of learning theory it seems so unlikely that knowledge of results should turn out to...

show abstract

Section: Iz How Does Kr Affect Sensitivity?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: 2mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: 3 Comparison Of Ki Andmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

The Use of Cuing in Training Tasks: Phase 2

Annett¹,

Paterson²

1966

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Response prompting and response confirmation: A review of recent literature.

Aiken¹,

Lau²

1967

Psychological Bulletin

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

REVIEWS RESEARCH COMPARING THE TRAINING EFFECTIVENESS OF RESPONSE CONFIRMATION WITH RESPONSE PROMPTING UNDER 3 MAJOR HEADINGS: (1) VERBAL LEARNING, (2) PERCEPTUAL LEARNING, AND (3) SIGNAL MONITORING. WITH THE POSSIBLE EXCEPTION OF DISCRIMINATION LEARNING, RESPONSE PROMPTING IS FOUND TO BE AS EFFECTIVE AND OFTEN MORE EFFECTIVE THAN RESPONSE CONFIRMATION. THE MAIN VARIABLES WHICH APPEAR TO DISTINGUISH THE 2 PROCEDURES IN THE VERBAL AND PERCEPTUAL LEARNING AREAS ARE THE CONTIGUITY OF THE STIMULI TO BE ASSOCIATED AND THE OCCURRENCE OF OVERT INCORRECT RESPONSES. IN SIGNAL MONITORING, THE IMPORTANT FACTORS APPEAR TO BE EXPOSURE TO THE SIGNAL AND ITS TEMPORAL DISTRIBUTION. (39 REF.)

show abstract

Training for vigilance: Combined cueing and knowledge of results.

Wiener

Attwood²

1968

Journal of Applied Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To test transfer of training in a visual monitoring task, 44 undergraduate Ss were given a 48-min training session to 1 of 4 conditions forming a 2 * 2 factorial design. The 4 training conditions were knowledge of results (KR), cueing (also known as prompting), KR and cueing, and a control group receiving neither training aid. 7 days later all Ss performed the same task with no training aids. Results showed that the KR-trained groups detected significantly more signals during transfer, but the cueing groups showed no significant differences. The group trained with the combination of KR and cueing did no better than the KR-only group. With respect to commissive errors (false alarms), there was no significant difference due to KR treatments, but the groups receiving cueing during training made significantly fewer during transfer. All 4 groups showed a decline in detection performance over time periods in the transfer session. (18 ref.)

show abstract

Response and feedback techniques for automated training of visual identification skills.

Cited by 6 publications

References 0 publications

The Use of Cuing in Training Tasks: Phase 2

The Use of Cuing in Training Tasks: Phase 2

Response prompting and response confirmation: A review of recent literature.

Training for vigilance: Combined cueing and knowledge of results.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About