Supplementary report: Discrimination learning with probabilistic reinforcement schedules.

An analysis of the interaction of incentive magnitude and relative event frequency in probability learning.

“…Thus, a within-subjects incentive study may be thought of as a probabilistic discrimination experiment in which the pretrial cues are payoffs. In the same manner that the present results show P(A X ) under one incentive level to be a direct function of the w value under the second incentive, Popper and Atkinson (1958) and Atkinson et al (1959) found that P(At) under one cue was a direct function of the reliability (I.e., the distance between ir and .50) of a second cue.…”

Alternative bases for choice in probabilistic discrimination.

“…Some of the data may reflect the effects of two opposed bases for choice. Experiments by Popper and Atkinson (1958) and by Atkinson, Bogartz, and Turner (1959) contained a condition in which the out-538 come percentages under the less frequent cue were 30 and 70, although the overall outcome percentages were in the other direction. The asymptotic response percentages for this condition were about 26 and 74 in the former study and about 22 and 78 in the latter.…”

Two-choice discrimination learning as a function of stimulus and event probabilities.

“…Generally, the Atkinson model predicts that the response probability on one trial type will be a convex function of the event probability on the other trial type. This prediction is borne out by the finding that P (A\ TI) (the probability of predicting E\ on a TI trial) decreases as r 2 decreases to .5 and then increases with further decreases in ITS (Atkinson, Bogartz, & Turner, 1959;Popper & Atkinson, 1958).…”