A formal analysis of the standard operating processes (SOP) and multiple time scales (MTS) theories of habituation.

IF 5.1 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY
Orlando E Jorquera, Osvaldo M Farfán, Sergio N Galarce, Natalia A Cancino, Pablo D Matamala, Edgar H Vogel
{"title":"A formal analysis of the standard operating processes (SOP) and multiple time scales (MTS) theories of habituation.","authors":"Orlando E Jorquera, Osvaldo M Farfán, Sergio N Galarce, Natalia A Cancino, Pablo D Matamala, Edgar H Vogel","doi":"10.1037/rev0000504","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In this article, we compare two theories of habituation: the standard operating processes (SOP) and the multiple time scales (MTS) models. Both theories propose that habituation is due to a reduction in the difference between actual and remembered stimulation. Although the two approaches explain short-term habituation using a similar nonassociative mechanism based on a time-decaying memory of recent stimulus presentations, their understanding of retention of habituation or long-term habituation differs. SOP suggests that retention of habituation happens through associative retrieval from a long-term memory store, while MTS relies on the differential decay rate of a series of memory units. This essential difference implies that spontaneous recovery, which refers to the return of the response to levels above those reached during habituation, is predominantly a consequence of a mixture of decay and loss of association for SOP and exclusively of decay for MTS. We analyze these mechanisms conceptually and mathematically and demonstrate their functioning with computer simulations of conceptual and published experiments. We evaluate both theories regarding parsimony and explanatory power and propose potential experiments to evaluate their predictions. We provide MATLAB-Simulink and Python codes for the simulations. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":21016,"journal":{"name":"Psychological review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychological review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000504","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In this article, we compare two theories of habituation: the standard operating processes (SOP) and the multiple time scales (MTS) models. Both theories propose that habituation is due to a reduction in the difference between actual and remembered stimulation. Although the two approaches explain short-term habituation using a similar nonassociative mechanism based on a time-decaying memory of recent stimulus presentations, their understanding of retention of habituation or long-term habituation differs. SOP suggests that retention of habituation happens through associative retrieval from a long-term memory store, while MTS relies on the differential decay rate of a series of memory units. This essential difference implies that spontaneous recovery, which refers to the return of the response to levels above those reached during habituation, is predominantly a consequence of a mixture of decay and loss of association for SOP and exclusively of decay for MTS. We analyze these mechanisms conceptually and mathematically and demonstrate their functioning with computer simulations of conceptual and published experiments. We evaluate both theories regarding parsimony and explanatory power and propose potential experiments to evaluate their predictions. We provide MATLAB-Simulink and Python codes for the simulations. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

对标准操作程序(SOP)和多时间尺度(MTS)习惯理论的正式分析。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Psychological review
Psychological review 医学-心理学
CiteScore
9.70
自引率
5.60%
发文量
97
期刊介绍: Psychological Review publishes articles that make important theoretical contributions to any area of scientific psychology, including systematic evaluation of alternative theories.
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信