Probability learning in the correction T maze under noncontingent reinforcement schedules.

1969 ◽  
Vol 82 (1, Pt.1) ◽  
pp. 115-120 ◽  
Author(s):  
Janet Robbins
2000 ◽  
Vol 33 (4) ◽  
pp. 419-431 ◽  
Author(s):  
SungWoo Kahng ◽  
Brian A. Iwata ◽  
Rachel H. Thompson ◽  
Gregory P. Hanley

2000 ◽  
Vol 33 (2) ◽  
pp. 223-231 ◽  
Author(s):  
SungWoo Kahng ◽  
Brian A. Iwata ◽  
Iser G. DeLeon ◽  
Michele D. Wallace

1971 ◽  
Vol 84 (2) ◽  
pp. 323-334 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas E. Dorsey ◽  
Frederick H. Kanfer ◽  
Pryse H. Duerfeldt

1964 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 163-171
Author(s):  
Mervyn O. Bergman ◽  
John C. Wright

A basic apparatus is described for programming events (discriminative stimuli, reinforcements, etc.) automatically. An indefinitely long sequence of dichotomous events can be scheduled with any distribution desired, by means of pre-punched cards. Manual overrides are provided for each automatic function of the programmer, and the state of the system and location of the program are continuously displayed. It is suggested that the unit is of most value in studies employing fixed and changing schedules of partial reinforcement, in probability learning studies, and in other situations requiring noncontingent reinforcement. Auxiliary apparatus used in studying response sequences under noncontingent reinforcement is described, and circuits for construction are specified.


2017 ◽  
Vol 51 (1) ◽  
pp. 61-69 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah K. Slocum ◽  
Emma Grauerholz-Fisher ◽  
Kerri P. Peters ◽  
Timothy R. Vollmer

1969 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
pp. 857-864 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert H. Brookshire

Nine aphasic and nine nonaphasic patients participated in a two-choice probability learning experiment in which they attempted to turn on a set of red “reinforcement” lights by pressing push buttons. During the first 50 trials, responses on one push button turned on the lights 70 times as often as responses on the other. During the next 50 trials, the reinforcement ratio was 5/1 in favor of the push button that first delivered maximum reinforcement. During the following five 50-trial blocks the ratio was changed successively to 2/1, 1/1, 1/2, 1/5, 1/70. Most aphasic subjects changed their response patterns to accord with the changing reinforcement ratios. Between-subject variability was greater for aphasic subjects than for nonaphasic subjects, and seven aphasic subjects exhibited “perseverative” response patterns in early reinforcement ratios. The performance of two aphasic subjects did not appear to be influenced by the reinforcement ratios in the first session. However, further observation and experimental treatment of these two subjects resulted in appropriate changes in their performance. The results of this study suggest that behavior-shaping techniques involving changing reinforcement schedules can be used in clinical treatment of aphasic patients.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document