scholarly journals Effects of discrimination training on stimulus generalization in pigeons: Role of resistance to extinction and response-produced stimuli

1979 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 301-308
Author(s):  
David R. Thomas ◽  
C. F. Hickis ◽  
Raymond L. Jackson ◽  
Robert J. Newlin
Keyword(s):  
Discrimination Training ◽  
Stimulus Generalization ◽  
Resistance To Extinction

Secondary Reinforcement and the Discrimination Hypothesis: The Role of Discrimination Training

1963 ◽  
Vol 13 (3) ◽  
pp. 679-686 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. B. Paige ◽  
H. J. McNamara
Keyword(s):  
Discrimination Training ◽  
Secondary Reinforcement ◽  
The Other ◽  
Running Time ◽  
Resistance To Extinction ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Discrimination Hypothesis

The purposes of this experiment are further investigation of: the discrimination hypothesis vs secondary reinforcement positions with respect to resistance to extinction; the role of explicit vs non-explicit discrimination training in resistance to extinction. One group of 32 rats was given explicit discrimination training in an L-type runway involving two goal boxes of different brightness. A second group of 32 Ss had non-explicit discrimination training, i.e., an unfastened card in the goal box entrances concealed the cues until S entered the goal box. Ss were always reinforced in the goal box of one brightness and never reinforced in the goal box of the other brightness. During extinction 16 Ss in each of the above groups were extinguished with the positive cue and 16 with the negative cue. Half of these positive cue and negative cue Ss encountered a card in the goal box entrance, and the rest did not. The results showed no significant difference in alley-running or arm-running times in extinction between the positive and negative cue Ss. Using number of trials to a criterion of two successive running times, Ss extinguished with the positive cue showed greater resistance to extinction. The type of discrimination training did not influence extinction results significantly, using running time or number of trials as a criterion. The results were interpreted as generally incompatible with the discrimination hypothesis prediction and only partially in support of a secondary reinforcement position.

Role of stimulus labeling in stimulus generalization.

1966 ◽  
Vol 71 (6) ◽  
pp. 913-915 ◽  
Author(s):  
David R. Thomas ◽  
Alberta Decapito
Keyword(s):  
Stimulus Generalization

Some Determinants of the Peak Shift in Stimulus Generalization

1973 ◽  
Vol 32 (1) ◽  
pp. 47-58 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephanie G. Weinberg
Keyword(s):  
Discrimination Training ◽  
Positive Reinforcement ◽  
Behavioral Contrast ◽  
Generalization Test ◽  
Variable Interval ◽  
Peak Shift ◽  
Test Session ◽  
Stimulus Generalization ◽  
Physical Separation ◽  
Subsequent Discrimination

Rats were pretrained in the presence of an auditory click rate stimulus of 14 pps correlated with variable-interval or variable-ratio reinforcement. During subsequent discrimination training, the added stimulus, correlated with extinction, was 18, 36, 72, or 0 (no sound) pps. After discrimination, Ss were given a generalization test session, in extinction, in which five click rate stimuli were presented. The inverse relationship between physical separation of the discrimination training stimuli and amount of peak shift of the generalization gradient occurred regardless of the original positive reinforcement schedule during training. Behavioral contrast was not produced by all Ss. Results demonstrated no effect of separation of training stimuli on behavioral contrast and that behavioral contrast and peak shift need not covary.

The role of overlearning trials in determining resistance to extinction.

1961 ◽  
Vol 61 (4) ◽  
pp. 345-349 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nathan R. Murillo ◽  
E. J. Capaldi
Keyword(s):  
Resistance To Extinction
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document