Short-term retention of response outcome as a determinant of serial reversal learning

Williams, Ben

doi:10.1016/0023-9690(76)90047-3

Cited by 14 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The ITI effects were consistent with those that have been observed in previous studies of ITI in serial reversal learning (Williams, 1971(Williams, , 1976, since reversal learning in the earlier experiments was more proficient with shorter ITIs. The size of the ITI effect that was seen here seems considerably less robust than that obtained in previous studies, however.…”

Section: Apparatussupporting

confidence: 81%

“…Bessemer & Stollnitz, 1971). For example, Williams (1976) proposed that the basis of the ITI effect in serial reversal learning was that subjects learned to use the outcome from the preceding trial as a conditional cue that was stored in short-term memory and that was therefore susceptible to decay over longer retention periods (i.e., ITI).…”

Section: Apparatusmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…One parameter that potentially has been studied is the time between successive trials: the intertrial interval (ITI). With longer ITIs, performance on serial reversal learning is substantially degraded, even after subjects have reached a high level of learning proficiency when trained initially f with shorter ITIs (Williams, 1971(Williams, , 1976. A finding of potential importance for understanding the facilitating ef-f f fect of short ITIs in serial reversal learning is that a similar effect has not been found in studies of simultaneous n discrimination learning in which a single discrimination problem has been presented (Biederman, 1967; see also Williams, 1977, for a discussion of an unpublished experiment).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Serial discrimination reversal learning in pigeons as a function of intertrial interval and delay of reinforcement

Ploog

Williams

2010

Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pigeons learned a series of reversals of a simultaneous red-green visual discrimination. Delay of reinforcement (0 vs. 2 sec) and intertrial interval (ITI; 4 vs. 40 sec) were varied across blocks of reversals. Learning was faster with 0-sec than with 2-sec delays for both ITI values and faster with 4-sec ITIs than with 40-sec ITIs for both delays. Improvement in learning across successive reversals was evident throughout the experiment, furthermore, even after more than 120 reversals. The potent effects of small differences in reinforcement delay id id f i ti t d t b i tibl ith t f h i th t tt t t provide evidence for associative accounts and appear to be incompatible with accounts of choice that attempt to encompass the effects of temporal parameters in terms of animals' timing of temporal intervals.

show abstract

Section: Apparatussupporting

confidence: 81%

Section: Apparatusmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Serial discrimination reversal learning in pigeons as a function of intertrial interval and delay of reinforcement

Ploog

Williams

2010

Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Similarly, reinforcement for R 2 may function as a discriminative stimulus for R 1 on the following trial. The development of an alternating pattern during fixed lag schedules may be similar to the effects of training protocols found in studies on serial reversal learning (Williams, 1976). During serial reversal learning, the participants are trained to criterion on a simple discrimination task.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 76%

Schedule-Induced and Operant Mechanisms that Influence Response Variability: A Review and Implications for Future Investigations

2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Response variability, a fundamental characteristic of behavior, may be in some cases an induced effect of reinforcement schedules. Research on schedule-induced response variability has shown that continuous reinforcement results in less variability than intermittent reinforcement schedules. Studies on the effects of intermittency of reinforcement, periodicity of reinforcement, and type of schedule have resulted in mixed findings. Contingencies have also been arranged to directly influence operant response variability. These include lag reinforcement schedules, differential reinforcement of novel behavior, differential reinforcement of less frequent behavior, and percentile reinforcement schedules. These procedures are discussed in terms of practicality and implications for use in applied settings. Contingencies and treatment packages that indirectly influence response variability are addressed in terms of response allocation, response generalization, and response covariation. Studies on the effects of a variety of other variables on response variability are also reported, such as levels of food deprivation and drugs. Finally, directions for applied research in response variability are suggested.Traditionally, behavioral variability has been considered an intrinsic, uncontrollable characteristic of behavior or a result of unforeseen, uncontrolled variables (Neuringer, 2002). As a result, the identification of methods to reduce the effects of potential sources of variability has been an important component of much research (Sidman, 1960). Alternatively, behavioral variability itself has been a recent topic of research and can have important implications, both theoretical and practical. From a theoretical perspective, such research has provided behavior analysts with a basis for the investigation of topics considered to be out of the realm of learning theory, such as creativity and originality (Marr, 2003). From a practical standpoint, the identification of conditions that lead to, maintain, or decrease response variability should aid in the refinement of existing practices and the development of new procedures that help reduce stereotypy among the clinical population. Such procedures could 430 LEE ET AL. be used to increase generative language, problem-solving skills, creative play, and normalistic social interactions.Although a behavior analysis of creative behavior is difficult, it is not new. Maltzman (1960) provided one of the earlier reviews of research in which people were taught "original" behavior. More recently, Shahan and Chase (2002) provided a review of behavioral concepts (e.g., adduction) that influence response variability and discussed how they relate to creativity and language. The concepts included stimulus generalization, conceptual behavior, and verbal operants. Neuringer (2002) provided an in-depth review of various procedures, noted their implications for treatment in applied settings, and discussed the sources of variability. Marr (2003) has recently rebutted traditional criticisms of a beha...

show abstract

“…SDRL typically produces increasingly rapid learning as a function of the number of repeated reversals. Such improvement in the rate of learning has been interpreted as an index of comparative intelligence (see Sutherland & Mackintosh, 1971, for a review), although it varies as a function of several procedural variables, including the response requirements (Williams, 1971a) and the ITI (Ploog & Williams, 2010;Williams, 1971bWilliams, , 1976. However, the range of procedural variables studied in conjunction with serial reversal learning has been limited, and LTL may not occur under all conditions.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Serial discrimination reversal learning in pigeons as a function of signal properties during the delay of reinforcement

Ploog

Williams

2013

Learn Behav

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pigeons learned a series of reversals of a simultaneous red-green discrimination with a 6-s delay of reinforcement. The signal properties during the 6-s reinforcement delay were varied across blocks of reversals, such that the delay was either unsignaled (intertrial interval conditions during the delay) or signaled by illumination of the center key. Four different signal conditions were presented: (1) signals only after S+ responses, (2) signals only after S-responses, (3) differential signals after S+ versus S-responding, and (4) the same nondifferential signals after S+ and S-responses. (A zero-delay control condition was also included.) Learning was at a high level in the S+-only and differential-signal conditions, and learning was at a low level during the unsignaled, nondifferentially signaled, and S-signal conditions. Thus, a differential stimulus contingent on correct choices was necessary for proficient learning-to-learn, even though withinreversal learning occurred in all conditions. During the S+ and differential-signal conditions, improvement in learning continued to occur even after more than 240 reversals (more than 38,000 trials).Keywords Serial-discrimination reversal learning . Un/signaled reinforcement delay . Learning-to-learn effect . Key peck . PigeonThe concept of conditioned reinforcement has a venerable but disputed status. The core of the concept is that an initially neutral stimulus gains conditioned value via its association with a primary reinforcer such as food. Thus, conditioned reinforcers share the properties of primary reinforcers, although presumably those properties are weaker. Those challenging the concept have not questioned whether putative conditioned reinforcers have powerful behavioral effects, but whether conditioned value is the proper characterization of the basis of those effects. Consequently, they have proposed the notion of a "sign post" by which the discriminative properties of the nominal conditioned reinforcer guide behavior, rather than actually strengthen it (see Shahan, 2010, for a discussion).Many different experimental procedures have been used to study conditioned reinforcement effects, so it is not surprising that different interpretations have ensued. Although the classic early studies used discrete-trial procedures (e.g., Grice, 1948, with rats), the majority of later studies have employed freeoperant procedures that primarily have used response rate, or in some cases choice, rather than the rate of learning (see Williams, 1994, for a review). A notable exception to this pattern was Williams and Dunn (1991a, with rats and pigeons), who studied the rate of learning of a two-choice simultaneous discrimination in which the differential consequences of correct versus incorrect choices were a 1-s tone plus food versus no feedback. In order to study within-subjects learning effects, repeated reversals of the values of the S+ and S-stimuli were used, with different conditions used for different reversals.In Experiment 1 of Williams and Dunn (1991a), th...

show abstract

Short-term retention of response outcome as a determinant of serial reversal learning

Cited by 14 publications

References 20 publications

Serial discrimination reversal learning in pigeons as a function of intertrial interval and delay of reinforcement

Serial discrimination reversal learning in pigeons as a function of intertrial interval and delay of reinforcement

Schedule-Induced and Operant Mechanisms that Influence Response Variability: A Review and Implications for Future Investigations

Serial discrimination reversal learning in pigeons as a function of signal properties during the delay of reinforcement

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About