Some effects of short-term immediate prior exposure to light change on responding for light change

Russell, Alan; Glow, Peter H.

doi:10.3758/bf03199191

Cited by 4 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, these studies have also suggested that there are optimal levels at which visual stimulation will exert a reinforcing effect, beyond which the stimulation is ineffective (Watras, 1982). Moreover, under some circumstances, light offset can be as reinforcing as light onset (Wine field & Glow, 1980), and such effects may be modulated by the immediately preceding experience with visual stimulation (Russell & Glow, 1974). Given these considerations, it is far from clear whether the characteristics of the experimental procedure and visual stimulus used by Reed (1993) would have led to sensory reinforcement via the visual stimulation.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intrinsic reinforcing properties of putatively neutral stimuli in an instrumental two-lever discrimination task

Reed

Mitchell

Nokes

1996

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intrinsic reinforcing properties of putatively neutral stimuli in an instrumental two-lever discrimination task

Reed

Mitchell

Nokes

1996

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Further support that surprise and not novelty supports sensory reinforcement comes from the evidence that light offsets are more-or-less as good reinforcers as light onsets (Glow, 1970 ; Russell and Glow, 1974 ). But in the case of light offset, where is the “novel” stimulus that acts as a reinforcer (by supposedly triggering dopamine)?…”

Section: Surprise and Novelty In Neuroscience And Cognitionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Novelty or Surprise?

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Novelty and surprise play significant roles in animal behavior and in attempts to understand the neural mechanisms underlying it. They also play important roles in technology, where detecting observations that are novel or surprising is central to many applications, such as medical diagnosis, text processing, surveillance, and security. Theories of motivation, particularly of intrinsic motivation, place novelty and surprise among the primary factors that arouse interest, motivate exploratory or avoidance behavior, and drive learning. In many of these studies, novelty and surprise are not distinguished from one another: the words are used more-or-less interchangeably. However, while undeniably closely related, novelty and surprise are very different. The purpose of this article is first to highlight the differences between novelty and surprise and to discuss how they are related by presenting an extensive review of mathematical and computational proposals related to them, and then to explore the implications of this for understanding behavioral and neuroscience data. We argue that opportunities for improved understanding of behavior and its neural basis are likely being missed by failing to distinguish between novelty and surprise.

show abstract

The determinants of exploration and neophobia

Corey

1978

Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews

177

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Some effects of short-term immediate prior exposure to light change on responding for light change

Cited by 4 publications

References 18 publications

Intrinsic reinforcing properties of putatively neutral stimuli in an instrumental two-lever discrimination task

Intrinsic reinforcing properties of putatively neutral stimuli in an instrumental two-lever discrimination task

Novelty or Surprise?

The determinants of exploration and neophobia

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About