Transfer of a response controlling stimulus duration across discrimination problems

Honig, Werner K.; Lindsay, Heather

doi:10.1016/0023-9690(75)90020-x

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Psychologists may not necessarily want to exclude theoretical significance from this concept. For example, one may wish to think of ways in which particular aspects of a stimulus are actually "processed" by the organism, such as the selection or perception of particular attributes of a complex stimulus (e.g., Reynolds, 1961b), or control by the associative values of a set of stimuli (Honig & Lindsay, 1975). These processes represent a contribution by the subject that is not encompassed by the neutral concept of stimulus control.…”

Section: Methodological and Conceptual Issues Stimulus Control And Stmentioning

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: Methodological and Conceptual Issues Stimulus Control And Stmentioning

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

“…The second multiple schedule consisted of two FIE components, where the only differences between the schedule components were the overall reinforcer frequency and the discriminative stimulus. Since results from W. K. Honig's laboratory have indicated that pigeons exhibit a preference for variable interval schedules over extinction in an advance-response procedure (Honig & Beale, 1976;Honig et al, 1972;Honig & Lindsey, 1975;Leyland & Honig, 1975;Siegel & Honig, 1970;Honig & Seraganian, Note 2), it was reasoned that schedules with large differences in the overall rate of reinforcement would afford an adequate baseline to determine whether the present advance-response procedure provided a means by which to measure preference in rats. Finally, a multiple schedule with the same FIE schedule in effect for both components was included to insure that any obtained preferences were not confounded by preference for a particular discriminative stimulus.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Rats show no preference between free and earned water in an advance-response procedure

DeLong

Grisham

1980

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The general conditions that support control-key responding are reasonably well understood. The primary reinforcement contingencies must differ in some significant way for the pigeon, with respect to frequency, amount, or delay of reinforcement, or the response requirements to obtain reinforcement (Honig and Lindsay, 1975). But the specific effects of the control-key response that maintain the behavior are not well understood.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

MAINTENANCE OF BEHAVIOR CONTROLLING THE DURATION OF DISCRIMINATIVE STIMULI¹

Leyland

Honig

1975

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

THE MAINTENANCE OF A RESPONSE CONTROLLING THE DURATION OF POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE DISCRIMINATIVE STIMULI IN A MULTIPLE SCHEDULE WAS EXAMINED WITH RESPECT TO THE POSSIBLE CONSEQUENCES OF THE RESPONSE: none, escape from the negative stimulus, production of the positive stimulus, and initiation of the reinforcement schedule associated with the latter. The last two seemed to be the major factors in producing and maintaining the response. Escape from the negative stimulus maintained it in most subjects, but only at a much lower level.

show abstract

Transfer of a response controlling stimulus duration across discrimination problems

Cited by 4 publications

References 9 publications

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

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

Rats show no preference between free and earned water in an advance-response procedure

MAINTENANCE OF BEHAVIOR CONTROLLING THE DURATION OF DISCRIMINATIVE STIMULI¹

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Transfer of a response controlling stimulus duration across discrimination problems

Cited by 4 publications

References 9 publications

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

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

Rats show no preference between free and earned water in an advance-response procedure

MAINTENANCE OF BEHAVIOR CONTROLLING THE DURATION OF DISCRIMINATIVE STIMULI1

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

MAINTENANCE OF BEHAVIOR CONTROLLING THE DURATION OF DISCRIMINATIVE STIMULI¹