The Experts below are selected from a list of 11949 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Karyl B. Swartz - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Serial Learning by Rhesus Monkeys
Animal Cognition and Sequential Behavior, 2002Co-Authors: Karyl B. Swartz, Sharon A. HimmanenAbstract:Like most interesting questions in comparative psychology, the question of Serial organization of behavior is not new. Hamilton (1911) demonstrated species differences in strategies for solving a rule-based four-choice problem, with monkeys and humans more likely to make choices based on relevant information obtained from previous trials than dogs, cats, or a horse. Although Hamilton’s task was not a Serial task, an efficient solution did require that the subject base its behavior on the series of responses executed during the current and immediately previous trial. Memory was implied, as was the rational use of information.
-
Serial Learning by rhesus monkeys: I. Acquisition and retention of multiple four-item lists.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 1991Co-Authors: Karyl B. Swartz, Shaofu Chen, Herbert S. TerraceAbstract:Two rhesus monkeys were trained to learn eight 4-item lists, each composed of 4 different photographs. Lists were trained in successive phases: A, A—»B, A—»B—»C, and A—»B-^»C—>D. After List 4, retention, as measured by the method of savings, was, on average, 66% (range: 4484%). Indeed, all 4 lists could be recalled reliably during a single session with neither a decrement in accuracy nor an increase in the latency of responding to each item. Response latencies on a subset test employing all possible 2- and 3-item subsets of each 4-item list support the hypothesis that monkeys form linear representations of a list. Latencies to Item 1 of a subset varied directly with the position of that item in the original list. On List 1, latencies to Item 2 varied directly with the number of intervening items between Item 1 and Item 2 in the original list. During the acquisition of Lists 5-8, both Ss mastered the A—»B and A—»B—»C phases of training in the minimum number of trials possible. Recent studies of Serial Learning by monkeys and pigeons have provided ample evidence that these nonverbal organisms can learn to produce arbitrary lists composed of arbitrary
E. J. Capaldi - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Serial Learning in Rats: A Test of Three Hypotheses.
Learning and Motivation, 2004Co-Authors: E. J. Capaldi, Ronald Mellado MillerAbstract:Abstract Findings obtained by providing rats with a single fixed series of events, A-B-C-…, often are equally compatible with three alternative Serial Learning interpretations: that the signal for items is (A) their position in the series (position view), (B) the prior item of the series (chaining view), and (C) one, two, or more prior items of the series (sequential view). By employing a novel procedure of supplying rats with two different series, rather than a single series, it was possible to choose between the three alternatives. Employing 10 and 0, 0.045 g, Noyes pellets as items, rats in both runway experiments reported here received a three trial series, either a 10-0-10 series or a 0-0-10 series. In Experiment 1, the other series was a single 0 pellet trial (along with 10-0-10) or a single 10 pellet trial (along with 0-0-10). In Experiment 2, the other series was either 0-0 (along with 10-0-10) or 10-0 (along with 0-0-10). Considering both experiments, findings were consistent with the sequential view but not with either the position view or the chaining view. The possibility was suggested that, under some other experimental conditions, particularly those not employing reward events as items, greater control over discriminative responding might be exercised by position cues than by item cues.
-
The Discriminative Stimulus and Response Enhancing Properties of Reward Produced Memories
Animal Cognition and Sequential Behavior, 2002Co-Authors: E. J. CapaldiAbstract:In this chapter I present a theory which is capable of explaining a wide variety of Learning phenomena. Two such phenomena will be emphasized here: Serial Learning and reward magnitude effects. I shall focus exclusively on a particular type of Serial Learning, reward outcome Serial Learning. In that type of Serial Learning, the stimuli which constitute the series are different qualities or quantities of food items presented successively in a regular order which must be learned. In other types of Serial Learning, not of immediate concern here, the stimuli might be geometric forms, color, etc. which are presented simultaneously rather than successively (e.g., D’Amato, 1991; Terrace, 1991).
-
Molar vs Molecular Approaches to Reward Schedule and Serial Learning Phenomena
Learning and Motivation, 2001Co-Authors: E. J. Capaldi, Ronald M. MillerAbstract:Abstract In Experiment 1 all rats received identical series of rewarded and nonrewarded trials in a black runway and in a white runway. A grouping cue, a change in runway brightness, was introduced on a rewarded trial that followed either a single nonrewarded trial (Group N1) or four successive nonrewarded trials (Group N4). Over a series of four nonrewarded trials terminating in reward, Group N1 ran slower than Group N4 on Trial 2 but faster than Group N4 on Trial 4. In Experiment 2, slower running occurred when the grouping cue occurred on Trial 4 of a consistent reward schedule rather than on Trial 4 of a partial reward schedule. These findings were shown to be inconsistent with three theories that attempt to explain reward schedule data in terms of some overall characteristic of the schedule such as percentage of reward (molar theories). The data are consistent with the sequential view that recommends decomposing reward schedules into more elementary memory units (a molecular theory). In particular the data demonstrate that the effects of an overall reward schedule on behavior are determined by the more specific reward schedules associated with each memory component of the schedule. Importantly, the findings suggest that reward schedule investigations and Serial Learning investigations are, theoretically speaking, identical. Accordingly, the findings strongly discourage the common practice of reward schedule theories ignoring Serial Learning data and of Serial Learning theories ignoring reward schedule data.
-
Is Discriminative Responding in Reward Outcome Serial Learning Mediated by Item Memories or by Position Cues
Learning and Motivation, 1997Co-Authors: E. J. Capaldi, Daniel J. Miller, Suzan Alptekin, Kimberly M. BirminghamAbstract:Abstract In two experiments, rats in a runway were trained under fixed predictable series of 6 plain food pellets, 6 sucrose food pellets (both Noyes .045 g), and nonreward. Whether discriminative responding, faster running to reward than to nonreward, was controlled by cues associated with memories of earlier food items in the series or by cues associated with the position of the item in the series was investigated here. In Experiment 1 a series easy to learn from an item standpoint (item group), but not a position standpoint, was learned while a series having the opposite characteristics (position group) was not learned. Experiment 2 findings suggested that when item cues and position cues were equally relevant, item cues gained the greater control over responding and may have overshadowed position cues. Taken together, the acquisition findings of Experiments 1 and 2 cannot be explained by the specific spatial position hypothesis recommended by D'Amato (1991) or by position hypotheses in general. Following acquisition in Experiment 1, rats were shifted to series in which items in novel positions continued to be validly signaled by food items. The item groups responded discriminatively in shift, a finding consistent with the item view but not the position view. Cases of Serial Learning in which discriminative responding might be more strongly regulated by item cues than by position cues or vice-versa were considered in the General Discussion.
Christian Stöcker - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Irrelevant response effects improve Serial Learning in Serial reaction time tasks.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 2001Co-Authors: Joachim Hoffmann, Albrecht Sebald, Christian StöckerAbstract:Tones were introduced into a Serial reaction time (SRT) task to serve as redundant response effects. Experiment 1 showed that the tones improved Serial Learning with a 10-element stimulus sequence, but only if the tone effects were mapped onto the responses contingently. Experiment 2 demonstrated that switching to noncontingent response-effect mapping increased SRT only when participants had previously adapted to contingent response-effect mapping. In Experiment 3, the beneficial influence of contingent tone effects on Serial Learning occurred only when there was sufficient time between the response effects and the next imperative stimuli. The results are discussed in terms of the ideomotor principle. It is claimed that an internal representation of the to-be-produced tone effects develops and gains control over the execution of the response sequence.
Herbert S. Terrace - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Serial Learning by rhesus monkeys: I. Acquisition and retention of multiple four-item lists.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 1991Co-Authors: Karyl B. Swartz, Shaofu Chen, Herbert S. TerraceAbstract:Two rhesus monkeys were trained to learn eight 4-item lists, each composed of 4 different photographs. Lists were trained in successive phases: A, A—»B, A—»B—»C, and A—»B-^»C—>D. After List 4, retention, as measured by the method of savings, was, on average, 66% (range: 4484%). Indeed, all 4 lists could be recalled reliably during a single session with neither a decrement in accuracy nor an increase in the latency of responding to each item. Response latencies on a subset test employing all possible 2- and 3-item subsets of each 4-item list support the hypothesis that monkeys form linear representations of a list. Latencies to Item 1 of a subset varied directly with the position of that item in the original list. On List 1, latencies to Item 2 varied directly with the number of intervening items between Item 1 and Item 2 in the original list. During the acquisition of Lists 5-8, both Ss mastered the A—»B and A—»B—»C phases of training in the minimum number of trials possible. Recent studies of Serial Learning by monkeys and pigeons have provided ample evidence that these nonverbal organisms can learn to produce arbitrary lists composed of arbitrary
Craig B. Neely - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Effects of sequence length and structure on implicit Serial Learning
Psychological Research, 1997Co-Authors: Michael Stadler, Craig B. NeelyAbstract:Some data suggest that, as in explicit Serial Learning, longer sequences are more difficult to learn implicitly. These findings have been used to support the inference that implicit Learning is capacity-limited. However, investigations of the effect of sequence length on implicit Learning have confounded sequence structure with sequence length. These factors were manipulated independently in 3 experiments using a Serial reaction time task. The results showed that sequence structure, not sequence length, largely determines the extent of sequence Learning.
