Transposition: A reevaluation.

Abstract

Theories of transposition are evaluated in terms of the available empirical data. The most often cited model, that of Spence (1937), is found to be adequate in its explanation of simple transposition and the distance effect. It encounters difficulty in explaining or incorporating the findings of: intermediate size, simultaneous versus successive discrimination, contrast and background effects, and mediated transposition. Other models are considered, with adaptation-level approaches providing the most adequate alternative to the Spence position. RETROSPECTIn the typical transposition demonstration, subjects (5s) are first trained to respond differentially to two stimuli, and are then tested with one or more new stimuli lying on the same physical dimension. For example, 5s may be reinforced for a response to a stimulus square 256 cm. 2 , nonreinforced for a response to stimulus square 160 cm. 2 , and then tested on stimulus squares 256 cm. 2 and 409 cm. 2 . If S chooses the larger (409 cm. 2 ), he is said to have transposed on the basis of the relative properties of the stimulus situation (relational responding); if S chooses the smaller (256 cm. 2 )-the one to which he has been trained -he is said to have acted on the basis of the absolute properties of the stimulus situation (absolute responding).A number of early investigators demonstrated that 5s do reliably perform in a rela-

Transposition in pigeons: reassessing spence (1937) with multiple discrimination training

“…Not only does it explain transposition in a nonrelational way, but also it explains the generally weaker transposition effect found in far than in near tests; it does so in terms of the diminishing effect of generalized excitation and inhibition from the Sϩ and the SϪ, respectively, to the increasingly distant testing stimuli (see Hebert & Krantz, 1965;Reese, 1968;Riley, 1968).…”

“…The theory cannot readily account for (1) stronger transposition after simultaneous than after successive discrimination training (e.g., Marsh, 1967;Riley, Ring, & Thomas, 1960; but see Hebert & Krantz, 1965;Wills & Mackintosh, 1999), (2) successful transfer of the intermediate stimulus problem (from S1Ϫ, S2ϩ, S3Ϫ to S4Ϫ, S5ϩ, S6Ϫ; see Riley, 1968, for details), and (3) improved transposition after discrimination training with pairs of multiple Sϩ and SϪ stimuli (Johnson & Zara, 1960;Marsh, 1967).…”

An application of adaptation-level theory to transposition responses in a conditional discrimination

“…The correct response to the lighter member (100 g) was left while right was correct for the heavier (200 g A possible advantage of A-L theory in the area of transposition is continuity with a rather extensive body of data in the area of psychophysics (Helson, 1964). Hebert & Krantz (1965) suggest that the application of formulations from the above source should lead to quantitative predictions in the field of transposition. The present study represents an attempt to apply one of Helson's (1947) formulas that was developed inpsychoPhYsical experiments with lifted weights to data obtained in a transposition situation.…”

Transposition of a stimulus generalization gradient along an auditory intensity continuum

“…The majority of the data relating to transposition has be en gathered using visual stimuli along the object size and brightness dimensions (for a recent review of some of the literature see Hebert & Krantz, 1965). To date, little work using auditor y continua has been done (McKee & Riley, 1962;Riley & McKee, 1963;and Riley, McKee, & Hadley, '1964), and even less work has employed an operant methodology (Honig, 1962) .…”