External vs. internal stimulus control: A comparison of stimulus generalization following training on different reinforcement schedules

1964 ◽  
Author(s):  
David R. Thomas
Keyword(s):  
Stimulus Control ◽  
Stimulus Generalization ◽  
Reinforcement Schedules ◽  
Internal Stimulus

Extinction, Stimulus Generalization and Partial Reinforcement for Higher-Order Meaning Conditioning

1969 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 288-290 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adam W. Miller ◽  
Wylla D. Barsness
Keyword(s):  
Factorial Design ◽  
Word Meaning ◽  
Higher Order ◽  
Partial Reinforcement ◽  
Stimulus Generalization ◽  
Reinforcement Schedules ◽  
Differential Effects ◽  
Order Conditioning

This study investigated the degree to which higher-order conditioning of word meaning demonstrated acquisition, stimulus generalization, extinction and differential effects of reinforcement schedules. For 120 Ss, using a 2 × 3 factorial design, only extinction was not demonstrated. S awareness was unrelated to acquisition.

Neuroleptic interference with the cocaine cue: Internal stimulus control of behavior and psychosis

1978 ◽  
Vol 58 (3) ◽  
pp. 247-255 ◽  
Author(s):  
Francis C. Colpaert ◽  
Carlos J. E. Niemegeers ◽  
Paul A. J. Janssen
Keyword(s):  
Stimulus Control ◽  
Internal Stimulus

scholarly journals Are freely chosen actions generated by stimulus codes or effect codes?

2020 ◽  
Vol 82 (7) ◽  
pp. 3767-3773
Author(s):  
Markus Janczyk ◽  
Christoph Naefgen ◽  
Wilfried Kunde
Keyword(s):  
Stimulus Control ◽  
Experimental Setup ◽  
Control Behavior ◽  
Control Models ◽  
Effect Model ◽  
Motor Activities ◽  
Internal Stimulus ◽  
Internal Effect

Abstract A long-standing debate revolves around which mental codes allow humans to control behavior. The internal stimulus model (going back to Rudolf Hermann Lotze) proposes that behavior is controlled by codes of stimuli that had previously preceded corresponding motor activities. The internal effect model (going back to Emil Harleß) proposes that behavior is controlled by codes of perceptual effects that had previously resulted from corresponding motor activities. Here, we present a test of these two control models. We observed evidence for both models with stronger evidence for the internal stimulus model. We suggest that the proposed experimental setup might be a useful tool to study the relative strengths of stimulus control and effect control of behavior in various contexts.

scholarly journals Stimulus Control of Odorant Concentration: Pilot Study of Generalization and Discrimination of Odor Concentration in Canines

Animals ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 326
Author(s):  
Mallory T. DeChant ◽  
Paul C. Bunker ◽  
Nathaniel J. Hall
Keyword(s):  
Stimulus Control ◽  
Training Stimulus ◽  
Generalization Test ◽  
Negative Stimulus ◽  
Isoamyl Acetate ◽  
Stimulus Generalization ◽  
Test Compound ◽  
Similar Concentration ◽  
Odor Concentration ◽  
Detection Systems

Despite dogs’ widespread use as detection systems, little is known about how dogs generalize to variations of an odorant’s concentration. Further, it is unclear whether dogs can be trained to discriminate between similar concentration variations of an odorant. Four dogs were trained to an odorant (0.01 air dilution of isoamyl acetate) in an air-dilution olfactometer, and we assessed spontaneous generalization to a range of concentrations lower than the training stimulus (Generalization Test 1). Dogs generalized to odors within a 10-fold range of the training odorant. Next, we conducted discrimination training to suppress responses to concentrations lower than a concentration dogs showed initial responding towards in Generalization Test 1 (0.0025 air dilution). Dogs successfully discriminated between 0.0025 and 0.01, exceeding 90% accuracy. However, when a second generalization test was conducted (Generalization Test 2), responding at the 0.0025 concentration immediately recovered and was no different than in Generalization Test 1. Dogs were then tested in another generalization test (Compound Discrimination and Generalization) in which generalization probes were embedded within discrimination trials, and dogs showed suppression of responding to the 0.0025 concentration and lower concentrations in this preparation. These data suggest dogs show limited spontaneous generalization across odor concentration and that dogs can be trained to discriminate between similar concentrations of the same odorant. Stimulus control, however, may depend on the negative stimulus, suggesting olfactory concentration generalization may depend on relative stimulus control. These results highlight the importance of considering odor concentration as a dimension for generalization in canine olfactory research.

Needs (Murray, 1938) and State-Variables (Skinner, 1938)

1992 ◽  
Vol 70 (2) ◽  
pp. 407-450 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul E. Meehl
Keyword(s):  
Philosophy Of Science ◽  
Stimulus Control ◽  
Response Selection ◽  
State Variables ◽  
Reinforcement Schedules ◽  
State Variable ◽  
Human Adults ◽  
Skinner Box

Skinner's concept of drive as a state-variable and his powerful rationale for introducing it agree closely with Murray's treatment of need. Operant behaviorists' usual deprecation of motivation in favor of stimulus control arises partly from features of parameters, insufficiently explored in some regions, of Skinner box research. For human adults on rich reinforcement schedules, response selection is chiefly controlled by the regnant motive. Skinner's life-long interest in inner events and translating psychodynamic concepts into behaviorese was obscured by his metalanguage philosophy of science (behaviorism).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document