1956
DOI: 10.1037/h0040984
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Stimulus context and satiation.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
45
1

Year Published

1965
1965
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 62 publications
(46 citation statements)
references
References 2 publications
0
45
1
Order By: Relevance
“…On the basis of previous response to change studies (e.,;., Kivy, Earl & Walker, 1956;Dember, 1956) it was expected that more Ss would enter the changed arm on trial one then would enter the unchanged arm. On the first test trial, 13 out of .15 entered the changed arm in Experiment I, 12 out of 16 in Experiment II, and 10 out of 11 in Experiment III.…”
Section: Results and Dlseusslonmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…On the basis of previous response to change studies (e.,;., Kivy, Earl & Walker, 1956;Dember, 1956) it was expected that more Ss would enter the changed arm on trial one then would enter the unchanged arm. On the first test trial, 13 out of .15 entered the changed arm in Experiment I, 12 out of 16 in Experiment II, and 10 out of 11 in Experiment III.…”
Section: Results and Dlseusslonmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Thus it has been suggested that visual recognition deficits might be a diagnostic marker of the early stages of AD [28,29]. In non-human animals this type of memory is assessed in the spontaneous object recognition task (SOR), which exploits the observation that rodents will preferentially explore a novel object in preference to one that is familiar [30,31]. Animals are exposed to a pair of identical, junk objects, and then after a retention interval returned to the apparatus, where one of the preexposed objects has been replaced with a novel item.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…While several investigators, including Glanzer (1953), Walker, Dember, Earl, &Karoly (1955), andO'Connell (1964), cIaimed to have found alternation ofvisual stimuli, Douglas (1966)has concluded that only odor trail and spatial direction are effective as cues for alternation. This assertion seems doubtful in view of the fact that brightness has been shown to be a critica1 factor in experiments involving stimulus change (Dember, 1956;Dember & Millbrook, 1956;Kivy, Earl, & Walker, 1956;O'Connell, 1964) and exploration (Montgomery, 1953), two phenomena that are c10sely related to spontaneous alternation behavior. Accordingly, the present experiment attempted to assess the relative contribution of visual and spatial-direction cues for alternation with odor-trail cues eliminated.…”
mentioning
confidence: 76%