scholarly journals Select, response, repeat: Electrophysiological measures of location and response repetition

2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (10) ◽  
pp. 272b
Author(s):  
Hayley EP Lagroix ◽  
Matthew D Hilchey ◽  
Jay Pratt ◽  
Susanne Ferber
Keyword(s):  
Response Repetition

scholarly journals Ayrık Denemelerle Öğretim Yapılırken Kullanılan Hata Düzeltmesi Türleri

2019 ◽  
Vol 1 (2019-V1-I1) ◽  
pp. 28-56
Keyword(s):  
Error Correction ◽  
Discrete Trial Training ◽  
Student Response ◽  
Response Repetition ◽  
Discrete Trial ◽  
Repeated Response ◽  
Main Components ◽  
Single Response ◽  
Correction Strategies ◽  
Types Of Error

Öz Gelişimsel yetersizliği olan çocuklara farklı becerilerin öğretiminde yaygın olarak kullanılan ayrık denemelerle öğretim, ipuçlarını kullanarak doğru tepkileri artırmayı amaçlayan, doğru tepkilerin pekiştirilmesini ve yanlış tepkilerin düzeltilmesini içeren etkili bir uygulamadır. Ayrık denemelerle öğretimin temel bileşenlerinden biri, hataları düzelterek ileride bu hataların sergilenmesini azaltmayı amaçlayan hata düzeltmesidir. Hata düzeltmesi, öğretim sırasında çocuğun hata yapmasının hemen ardından, uygulamacının farklı şekillerde çocuğun hatasını düzeltmesidir. Ayrık denemelerle öğretimde hata düzeltmesi, farklı şekillerde gerçekleştirilebilmektedir. Bunlardan bazıları; sözel geribildirim ya da hata ifadesi, kısa süreli mola, doğru tepki için model olma, tek tepki tekrarı/aktif öğrenci tepkisi, çok tepki tekrarı/tekrarlanan tepki, bağımsızlaşana kadar tekrar sunma, deneme tekrarı ve türlerin bir arada kullanımıdır. Derleme biçiminde hazırlanan bu makalenin amacı uygulamacılara, ayrık denemelerle öğretim hakkında kısa bir bilgilendirme yapmak ve bir bileşen olarak hata düzeltmesinin ne olduğunu ve neden önemli olduğunu açıklamaktır. Ayrıca ayrık denemelerle öğretim yaparken sıklıkla kullanılan hata düzeltmesi türlerini tanıtmak, hata düzeltmesi türlerini akış şemaları yoluyla kavramsallaştırmak, hata düzeltmesi türlerinin nasıl kullanılacağını örneklerle anlatmak ve bu hata düzeltmesi türlerini kullanarak gerçekleştirilen araştırmalar konusunda bilgilendirme yapmaktır. Abstract Discrete trial training is an effective intervention commonly used in teaching different skills to children with developmental disabilities. It aims to increase the correct responses using prompts, reinforcements, and error correction strategies. One of the main components of the discrete trial training is error correction, which aims to reduce errors in the future by correcting errors. In error correction, the instructor corrects the child’s error using different strategies immediately after the child makes a mistake during training. There are several types of error correction strategies commonly used in discrete trial training; (a) vocal feedback or error statement, (b) a brief time-out, (c) a model for the correct response, (d) single response repetition/active student response, (e) multi-response repetition/repeated response, (f) re-present until independent, (g) remove and re-present, and (h) the combination of the strategies. The purpose of this study is to provide a brief overview of discrete trial training, to explain the error correction procedures and their importance, to introduce the types of error correction strategies used in discrete trial training, to conceptualize error correction strategies through flowcharts, to explain how to use error correction strategies, and to inform about the error correction literature.

Dopamine dependency of cognitive switching and response repetition effects in Parkinson's patients

2005 ◽  
Vol 43 (14) ◽  
pp. 1990-1999 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sheryl K. Shook ◽  
Elizabeth A. Franz ◽  
Christopher I. Higginson ◽  
Vicki L. Wheelock ◽  
Karen A. Sigvardt
Keyword(s):  
Response Repetition ◽  
Repetition Effects ◽  
Cognitive Switching

scholarly journals Testing the role of response repetition in spatial priming in visual search

2018 ◽  
Vol 80 (6) ◽  
pp. 1362-1374 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew D. Hilchey ◽  
Andrew B. Leber ◽  
Jay Pratt
Keyword(s):  
Visual Search ◽  
Response Repetition ◽  
Spatial Priming

Intertrial Effects of Same-Different Judgements

1981 ◽  
Vol 33 (3) ◽  
pp. 241-265 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lester E. Krueger ◽  
Ronald G. Shapiro
Keyword(s):  
Letter Pair ◽  
Preceding Trial ◽  
Judgment Task ◽  
Response Repetition ◽  
Stimulus Repetition ◽  
Repetition Effects ◽  
Stimulus Interval ◽  
Response Stimulus Interval ◽  
Response Stimulus ◽  
Present Trial

Specific intertrial effects (repetition effects) and general intertrial effects (refractoriness or persisting attention to the preceding trial) were studied with the same-different judgment task, which dissociates the effects of response repetition and stimulus repetition. Response repetition alone did not facilitate performance. Stimulus repetition did aid performance, but mainly when accompanied by response repetition. Subjects tended to avoid the normal comparison process by using the (invalid!) “bypass rule” (Fletcher and Rabbitt, 1978): repeat the response if the stimulus or some aspect thereof (letter contents, size, position) is repeated from the preceding trial, otherwise change the response. As to general effects, partial refractoriness was evident at response execution, but not at earlier processing stages. Mean RT increased, but errors decreased, as the response-stimulus interval (RSI) between trials decreased. Presenting a new letter pair immediately after the preceding response produced a delay, but subjects used the waiting time, while the response system recovered or was redirected to the present trial, to improve the accuracy of their decision.

After-Effects of Responding and of Withholding Responses in C.RT Tasks

1977 ◽  
Vol 29 (3) ◽  
pp. 425-436 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrick Rabbitt ◽  
Margaret Clancy ◽  
Subhash Vyas
Keyword(s):  
Network Model ◽  
Response Repetition ◽  
After Effects ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Different Response ◽  
Immediate Response

The effects of response repetition on choice RT were compared in b-reaction and in c-reaction tasks [Experiments I(a) and I(b)]. The difference in RTs for repeated and for non-repeated responses was found to be less for c-reaction than for b-reaction tasks. This seemed to be because in c-reaction tasks subjects can prepare themselves to make the same response on every trial, so that there is little further RT reduction consequent on immediate response repetition. In b-reaction tasks subjects cannot always prepare to make the same response, so that the difference between response repetition RT and responce alteration RT is greater. Experiment II examined transitions between events in a serial, self-paced C.RT task in which subjects made a different response to each of two signals but withheld any response to the onset of a third. In this task responses were faster when they followed other, different responses than when they followed “no go” trials. The results of these experiments allow us to reject, even for very elementary tasks, a simple “S—R connection network” model for the processes involved in the identification of signals and the production of responses to them.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document