scholarly journals Rats can learn a probability discrimination based on previous trial outcomes in partial reward schedules

1980 ◽  
Vol 16 (5) ◽  
pp. 337-340
Author(s):  
Patrick E. Campbell ◽  
Wendy B. Campbell ◽  
Brian M. Kruger ◽  
Patricia Roberts
Keyword(s):  
Partial Reward ◽  
Previous Trial ◽  
Trial Outcomes

Information and the Partial Reinforcement Acquisition Effect

1973 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 147-153 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. N. Wilton ◽  
R. O. Clements
Keyword(s):  
Reinforcement Schedule ◽  
Partial Reinforcement ◽  
Partial Reward ◽  
The Other ◽  
Delayed Reinforcement ◽  
The Third ◽  
Trial Outcome ◽  
Trial Outcomes

Three groups of rats were trained on a delayed reinforcement schedule in an L-shaped runway. The running response, completed just before the turn of the runway, initiated the delay and exposed the rats to one of two delay stimuli. For two of the groups partial reward (50%) followed the delay. For one of these groups the delay stimuli and trial outcomes were correlated, making the delay stimuli informative with respect to the trial outcome some seconds before the outcome occurred. For the other group the delay stimuli and outcomes were uncorrelated, so information was not delivered until the occurrence of the trial outcome. The third group was reinforced on every trial (CRF), so no information followed responding at all. The results were that the partial reinforcement animals trained with correlated stimuli ran most quickly, followed by the partial reinforcement animals trained with uncorrelated stimuli, and then by the animals that were reinforced on every trial. The results were explained by the hypothesis that stimuli antedating the goal are increased in reinforcing strength when they transmit information, with the increase being proportionally greater the further the stimuli are from the goal.

scholarly journals Pitfalls in quantifying exploration in reward-based motor learning and how to avoid them

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nina M. van Mastrigt ◽  
Katinka van der Kooij ◽  
Jeroen B. J. Smeets
Keyword(s):  
Motor Learning ◽  
Task Characteristics ◽  
Previous Trial ◽  
Binary Function ◽  
Simulated Learning ◽  
Model Free ◽  
Trial Outcomes ◽  
Free Quantification ◽  
Selection Of ◽  
And Task

AbstractWhen learning a movement based on binary success information, one is more variable following failure than following success. Theoretically, the additional variability post-failure might reflect exploration of possibilities to obtain success. When average behavior is changing (as in learning), variability can be estimated from differences between subsequent movements. Can one estimate exploration reliably from such trial-to-trial changes when studying reward-based motor learning? To answer this question, we tried to reconstruct the exploration underlying learning as described by four existing reward-based motor learning models. We simulated learning for various learner and task characteristics. If we simply determined the additional change post-failure, estimates of exploration were sensitive to learner and task characteristics. We identified two pitfalls in quantifying exploration based on trial-to-trial changes. Firstly, performance-dependent feedback can cause correlated samples of motor noise and exploration on successful trials, which biases exploration estimates. Secondly, the trial relative to which trial-to-trial change is calculated may also contain exploration, which causes underestimation. As a solution, we developed the additional trial-to-trial change (ATTC) method. By moving the reference trial one trial back and subtracting trial-to-trial changes following specific sequences of trial outcomes, exploration can be estimated reliably for the three models that explore based on the outcome of only the previous trial. Since ATTC estimates are based on a selection of trial sequences, this method requires many trials. In conclusion, if exploration is a binary function of previous trial outcome, the ATTC method allows for a model-free quantification of exploration.

Prime Proportion Affects Masked Priming of Fixed and Free-Choice Responses

2010 ◽  
Vol 57 (5) ◽  
pp. 360-366 ◽  
Author(s):  
Glen E. Bodner ◽  
Rehman Mulji
Keyword(s):  
Decision Process ◽  
Free Choice ◽  
Masked Priming ◽  
Local Context ◽  
Previous Trial ◽  
Target Response ◽  
Global Context ◽  
Sequential Trial

Left/right “fixed” responses to arrow targets are influenced by whether a masked arrow prime is congruent or incongruent with the required target response. Left/right “free-choice” responses on trials with ambiguous targets that are mixed among fixed trials are also influenced by masked arrow primes. We show that the magnitude of masked priming of both fixed and free-choice responses is greater when the proportion of fixed trials with congruent primes is .8 rather than .2. Unconscious manipulation of context can thus influence both fixed and free choices. Sequential trial analyses revealed that these effects of the overall prime context on fixed and free-choice priming can be modulated by the local context (i.e., the nature of the previous trial). Our results support accounts of masked priming that posit a memory-recruitment, activation, or decision process that is sensitive to aspects of both the local and global context.

Effects of Previous Trial on Processing Ambiguous Words

2002 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matt Garlinghouse ◽  
F. Richard Ferraro ◽  
C. Henderson ◽  
T. Lenhardt ◽  
J. Mountain
Keyword(s):  
Previous Trial ◽  
Ambiguous Words

Time after time: support for memory accounts of temporal preparation.

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joe Butler ◽  
Samuel Ngabo ◽  
Marcus Missal
Keyword(s):  
Response Times ◽  
Reaction Times ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Higher Order ◽  
Order Effects ◽  
Previous Trial ◽  
Adaptive Responses ◽  
Temporal Preparation ◽  
Subsequent Trial ◽  
Higher Order Effects

Complex biological systems build up temporal expectations to facilitate adaptive responses to environmental events, in order to minimise costs associated with incorrect responses, and maximise the benefits of correct responses. In the lab, this is clearly demonstrated in tasks which show faster response times when the period between warning (S1) and target stimulus (S2) on the previous trial was short and slower when the previous trial foreperiod was long. The mechanisms driving such higher order effects in temporal preparation paradigms are still under debate, with key theories proposing that either i) the foreperiod leads to automatic modulation of the arousal system which influences responses on the subsequent trial, or ii) that exposure to a foreperiod results in the creation of a memory trace which is used to guide responses on the subsequent trial. Here we provide data which extends the evidence base for the memory accounts, by showing that previous foreperiod exposures are cumulative with reaction times shortening after repeated exposures; whilst also demonstrate that the higher order effects associated with a foreperiod remain active for several trials.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document