Cue and contextual stimulus intensity in discrimination learning.

1958 ◽  
Vol 55 (2) ◽  
pp. 195-199 ◽  
Author(s):  
John E. Nygaard
Keyword(s):  
Discrimination Learning ◽  
Stimulus Intensity ◽  
Contextual Stimulus

Reflex Responses in Upper Limb Muscles to Cutaneous Stimuli

1993 ◽  
Vol 20 (04) ◽  
pp. 271-278 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. Chen
Keyword(s):  
Stimulus Intensity ◽  
Upper Limb ◽  
Healthy Subjects ◽  
Voluntary Contraction ◽  
Cutaneous Reflexes ◽  
Focal Lesions ◽  
Normal Ranges ◽  
Conduction Velocities ◽  
Limb Muscles ◽  
Biphasic Responses

ABSTRACT:Cutaneous reflexes in the upper limb were elicited by stimulating digital nerves and recorded by averaging rectified EMG from proximal and distal upper limb muscles during voluntary contraction. Distal muscles often showed a triphasic response: an inhibition with onset about 50 ms (Il) followed by a facilitation with onset about 60 ms (E2) followed by another inhibition with onset about 80 ms (12). Proximal muscles generally showed biphasic responses beginning with facilitation or inhibition with onset at about 40 ms. Normal ranges for the amplitude of these components were established from recordings on 22 arms of 11 healthy subjects. An attempt was made to determine the alterent fibers responsible for the various components by varying the stimulus intensity, by causing ischemic block of larger fibers and by estimating the afferent conduction velocities. The central pathways mediating these reflexes were examined by estimating central delays and by studying patients with focal lesions

Distinctive Phonetic Features as Relevant and Irrelevant Stimulus Dimensions in Speech-Sound Discrimination Learning

1974 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 417-425
Author(s):  
Stuart I. Ritterman ◽  
Nancy C. Freeman
Keyword(s):  
College Students ◽  
Discrimination Learning ◽  
Irrelevant Dimension ◽  
Speech Sound ◽  
Irrelevant Stimulus ◽  
Relevant Dimension ◽  
Phonetic Features ◽  
Sound Discrimination ◽  
Nonsense Syllables

Thirty-two college students were required to learn the relevant dimension in each of two randomized lists of auditorily presented stimuli. The stimuli consisted of seven pairs of CV nonsense syllables differing by two relevant dimension units and from zero to seven irrelevant dimension units. Stimulus dimensions were determined according to Saporta’s units of difference. No significant differences in performance as a function of number of the irrelevant dimensions nor characteristics of the relevant dimension were observed.

Cognitive Development Meets Discrimination Learning

1996 ◽  
Vol 41 (11) ◽  
pp. 1109-1110
Author(s):  
Deborah G. Kemler Nelson
Keyword(s):  
Cognitive Development ◽  
Discrimination Learning

Temporal Discrimination Learning Based on Feature-Target Intervals

2000 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. James Kehoe ◽  
Kristin G. Boesenberg ◽  
Natasha White ◽  
Benjamin Carr ◽  
Gabrielle Weidemann
Keyword(s):  
Discrimination Learning ◽  
Temporal Discrimination ◽  
Feature Target
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document