Stimulus generalization to hue in the darkreared macaque.

Ganz, Leo; Riesen, Austin H.

doi:10.1037/h0044987

Cited by 29 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Such methods are required to obviate differential reinforcement on the test dimension before generalization gradients are obtained. Ganz and Riesen (1962) reared two groups of macaque monkeys, one in darkness and the other in normal illumination. All animals then learned to press a lever for reinforcement while one eye was illuminated with diffuse monochromatic light through a contact lens.…”

Section: Stimulus Generalization As a Psychophysical Problemmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Legacy of Guttman and Kalish (1956): 25 Years of Research on Stimulus Generalization

Honig

Urcuioli

1981

J Exper Analysis Behavior

267

187

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper is a selective review of the methods, problems, and findings in the area of operant stimulus generalization over the 25 years since the publication of the original paper by Guttman and Kalish (1956) on discriminability and spectral generalization in the pigeon. The paper falls into five main sections, which encompass the main themes and problems stemming from the Guttman and Kalish work and its immediate successors. The first section addresses the relationship between stimulus generalization and stimulus control, as well as the variety of testing procedures and dependent variables used to measure generalization. The next section reviews the limited literature on the effects of early rearing on the generalization gradient. The relationship between discriminability among test stimuli and the slope of the spectral gradient is discussed in the third section, with emphasis upon recent reassessments of the pigeon's hue discriminability function. The fourth section reviews the topic of inhibitory stimulus control, one which developed with the discovery of the peak shift following intradimensional discrimination training. Problems of definition and measurement are discussed in conjunction with the gradient forms used to index inhibitory control. The last section is devoted to attentional effects and the two principal theories postulated to account for them. A survey of different attentional paradigms is provided and the possible role of constant irrelevant stimuli as a source of control is examined. A brief conclusion summarizes the contribution of the generalization technique toward an understanding of the nature and acquisition of stimulus control.

show abstract

Section: Stimulus Generalization As a Psychophysical Problemmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Legacy of Guttman and Kalish (1956): 25 Years of Research on Stimulus Generalization

Honig

Urcuioli

1981

J Exper Analysis Behavior

267

187

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A number of experiments have established that the mere presence of a stimulus at the time a response is reinforced is not a sufficient condition for the stimulus to gain control over '7 1967, 10, 17-33 NUMBER I (.JANUARY) the response (Peterson, 1962;Ganz and Riesen, 1962;Jenkins and Harrison, 1960). Whether or not single-stimulus training establishes a discrimination between the training and other stimulus values seems to depend on variables not made explicit in the single-stimulus training procedure.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

THE COURSE OF ACQUISITION OF A LINE‐TILT DISCRIMINATION BY RHESUS MONKEYS¹

Ray

1967

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Each of four groups of monkeys were trained on a different simultaneous discrimination procedure involving a vertical line as the correct choice. Each group, after acquiring the discrimination, was tested for generalization along the dimension of line tilt. Monkeys that learned to select the vertical line when the alternative choices were distinguished from the correct choice by two aspects (brightness and absence of line) showed almost complete tilt generalization (flat gradient). Monkeys that learned to select the line when the alternatives were distinguished only by the absence of the line showed poor tilt discrimination (generalization gradient slightly peaked at vertical). Monkeys developed a good tilt discrimination when nonvertical lines were gradually introduced by progressively darkening them on the previously blank alternatives. Monkeys developed a tilt discrimination with the lowest error rate when only horizontal alternatives were gradually introduced and then pairs of alternatives progressively closer to vertical were made available.

show abstract

“…Even in adults, that story appears to be a complicated one. In juveniles, differential (differently consequated) exposure to a stimulus dimension has appeared essential for peaked results in some cases (e.g., Kerr, Ostapoff, & Rubel, 1979; Peterson, 1962; Rubel & Rosenthal, 1975) but not in others (e.g., Ganz & Riesen, 1962; Malott, 1968; Mountjoy & Malott, 1968; Rudolph & Honig, 1972; Rudolph, Honig, & Gerry, 1969). …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%