基于计算机的刺激泛化与峰移研究实验室项目。

A. Derenne, Eevett Loshek
{"title":"基于计算机的刺激泛化与峰移研究实验室项目。","authors":"A. Derenne, Eevett Loshek","doi":"10.1037/H0100679","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"One of the difficulties faced by instructors of courses on the psychology of learning is to develop laboratory projects that effectively recreate the methods used in actual research. The traditional steady-state research methodology used with pigeons or rats does not readily lend itself to classroom investigation because of the extensive timeframe involved, the difficulty in procuring the necessary equipment, and problems with finding an appropriate housing arrangement for the subjects. Zuriff (2005) recommended that instructors use laboratory exercises that recreate the \"golden oldies\" of past behavior-analytic research, that is, classic experiments that illustrate basic learning processes. Among the numerous advantages of this approach is that laboratory exercises of this kind can be conducted with commercially available computer simulations of animal behavior if live animals are unavailable (e.g., Graf, 1995; Venneman & Knowles, 2005). The laboratory project described here is intended to help instructors create a laboratory project involving original data collection from live subjects. In brief, human participants are used in lieu of nonhumans. Also, the project does not require extensive investigations of single individuals; rather comparisons can be between-groups. The topic of the laboratory project is stimulus generalization and peak shift, an area that qualifies as both a \"golden oldie\" (cf. Ghirlanda & Enquist, 2003; Honig & Urcuioli, 1981) and the subject of ongoing research and theory development (e.g., Blanco, Santamaria, Chamizo, & Rodrigo, 2006; Derenne, Breitstein, & Cicha, 2008; Ghirlanda & Enquist, 2007; Lynn, Cnaani, & Papaj, 2005; Martindale, 2006; McLaren & Mackintosh, 2002; Spetch, Cheng, & Clifford, 2004). In the traditional method of measuring stimulus generalization, participants first receive generalization training followed by a generalization test. During training one stimulus (S+) is presented repeatedly and responses in its presence are reinforced. During testing, a variety of related stimuli are shown and stimulus generalization is measured as responses to stimuli other than S+. The graphical depiction of response frequency to each stimulus constitutes a generalization gradient. The generalization gradient is usually symmetrical in shape with the modal response or \"peak\" of the gradient directed to the S+. If participants receive discrimination training instead, responses to the S+ are reinforced while responses to a second stimulus (S-) are not. This procedure often produces an asymmetrical generalization gradient, with the gradient displaced away from S+ and towards stimuli on the opposite end of the stimulus dimension from S-. Peak shift describes displacement in the modal response; if the mean response is displaced but the modal response is not, then the term area shift may be used (Rilling, 1977). Research on stimulus generalizationn and peak shift has used both humans and nonhumans. When nonhumans are used, the reinforcer is typically food and subjects are trained with response-contingent food in the presence of one stimulus (S+) but not the other (S-). When humans are used, the \"reinforcer\" is typically feedback indicating that the response was correct or incorrect. The generalization test also varies. For nonhumans, responses to the test stimuli (including S+) are extinguished to prevent additional learning. For humans, meaningful feedback about response accuracy is withheld (subjects may be told that a response was recorded, but not whether the response was correct or incorrect; cf. Derenne, 2006). Despite these important differences in procedure, many of the variables investigated with humans and nonhumans have been shown to have a similar effect (e.g., Wills & Mackintosh, 1998; Thomas, 1993). Keith (2002) has also recommended peak shift as a topic of in-class laboratory investigations. Keith, however, suggested that the project should be conducted with materials that the students create. …","PeriodicalId":88717,"journal":{"name":"The behavior analyst today","volume":"13 1","pages":"391-397"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2010-06-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Computer-Based Laboratory Project for the Study of Stimulus Generalization and Peak Shift.\",\"authors\":\"A. Derenne, Eevett Loshek\",\"doi\":\"10.1037/H0100679\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"One of the difficulties faced by instructors of courses on the psychology of learning is to develop laboratory projects that effectively recreate the methods used in actual research. The traditional steady-state research methodology used with pigeons or rats does not readily lend itself to classroom investigation because of the extensive timeframe involved, the difficulty in procuring the necessary equipment, and problems with finding an appropriate housing arrangement for the subjects. Zuriff (2005) recommended that instructors use laboratory exercises that recreate the \\\"golden oldies\\\" of past behavior-analytic research, that is, classic experiments that illustrate basic learning processes. Among the numerous advantages of this approach is that laboratory exercises of this kind can be conducted with commercially available computer simulations of animal behavior if live animals are unavailable (e.g., Graf, 1995; Venneman & Knowles, 2005). The laboratory project described here is intended to help instructors create a laboratory project involving original data collection from live subjects. In brief, human participants are used in lieu of nonhumans. Also, the project does not require extensive investigations of single individuals; rather comparisons can be between-groups. The topic of the laboratory project is stimulus generalization and peak shift, an area that qualifies as both a \\\"golden oldie\\\" (cf. Ghirlanda & Enquist, 2003; Honig & Urcuioli, 1981) and the subject of ongoing research and theory development (e.g., Blanco, Santamaria, Chamizo, & Rodrigo, 2006; Derenne, Breitstein, & Cicha, 2008; Ghirlanda & Enquist, 2007; Lynn, Cnaani, & Papaj, 2005; Martindale, 2006; McLaren & Mackintosh, 2002; Spetch, Cheng, & Clifford, 2004). In the traditional method of measuring stimulus generalization, participants first receive generalization training followed by a generalization test. During training one stimulus (S+) is presented repeatedly and responses in its presence are reinforced. During testing, a variety of related stimuli are shown and stimulus generalization is measured as responses to stimuli other than S+. The graphical depiction of response frequency to each stimulus constitutes a generalization gradient. The generalization gradient is usually symmetrical in shape with the modal response or \\\"peak\\\" of the gradient directed to the S+. If participants receive discrimination training instead, responses to the S+ are reinforced while responses to a second stimulus (S-) are not. This procedure often produces an asymmetrical generalization gradient, with the gradient displaced away from S+ and towards stimuli on the opposite end of the stimulus dimension from S-. Peak shift describes displacement in the modal response; if the mean response is displaced but the modal response is not, then the term area shift may be used (Rilling, 1977). Research on stimulus generalizationn and peak shift has used both humans and nonhumans. When nonhumans are used, the reinforcer is typically food and subjects are trained with response-contingent food in the presence of one stimulus (S+) but not the other (S-). When humans are used, the \\\"reinforcer\\\" is typically feedback indicating that the response was correct or incorrect. The generalization test also varies. For nonhumans, responses to the test stimuli (including S+) are extinguished to prevent additional learning. For humans, meaningful feedback about response accuracy is withheld (subjects may be told that a response was recorded, but not whether the response was correct or incorrect; cf. Derenne, 2006). Despite these important differences in procedure, many of the variables investigated with humans and nonhumans have been shown to have a similar effect (e.g., Wills & Mackintosh, 1998; Thomas, 1993). Keith (2002) has also recommended peak shift as a topic of in-class laboratory investigations. Keith, however, suggested that the project should be conducted with materials that the students create. …\",\"PeriodicalId\":88717,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The behavior analyst today\",\"volume\":\"13 1\",\"pages\":\"391-397\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2010-06-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The behavior analyst today\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1037/H0100679\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The behavior analyst today","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/H0100679","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

学习心理学课程的讲师所面临的困难之一是开发实验室项目,有效地再现实际研究中使用的方法。用鸽子或老鼠做实验的传统稳态研究方法并不适用于课堂调查,因为涉及的时间范围很长,难以获得必要的设备,而且很难为受试者找到合适的住房安排。Zuriff(2005)建议教师使用实验室练习,重现过去行为分析研究的“黄金老歌”,即说明基本学习过程的经典实验。这种方法的众多优点之一是,如果没有活体动物,这种实验室练习可以用商业上可用的计算机模拟动物行为来进行(例如,Graf, 1995;Venneman & Knowles, 2005)。这里描述的实验项目旨在帮助教师创建一个涉及活体受试者原始数据收集的实验项目。简而言之,人类参与者被用来代替非人类参与者。此外,该项目不需要对单个人进行广泛的调查;相反,可以在组与组之间进行比较。实验项目的主题是刺激泛化和峰移,这是一个被称为“黄金老调”的领域(参见Ghirlanda & Enquist, 2003;Honig & Urcuioli, 1981)以及正在进行的研究和理论发展的主题(例如,Blanco, Santamaria, Chamizo, & Rodrigo, 2006;Derenne, Breitstein, & Cicha, 2008;Ghirlanda & Enquist, 2007;Lynn, Cnaani, & Papaj, 2005;马丁代尔,2006;McLaren & Mackintosh, 2002;Spetch, Cheng, & Clifford, 2004)。在传统的刺激泛化测量方法中,被试首先接受泛化训练,然后进行泛化检验。在训练过程中,一个刺激(S+)被反复呈现,在其存在下的反应被强化。在测试过程中,显示各种相关刺激,并以对S+以外的刺激的反应来测量刺激泛化。对每个刺激的反应频率的图形描述构成了一个泛化梯度。泛化梯度在形状上通常是对称的,其模态响应或梯度的“峰”指向S+。如果参与者接受辨别训练,对S+的反应会得到加强,而对第二个刺激(S-)的反应则不会。这个过程通常会产生一个不对称的泛化梯度,梯度从S+移向刺激维度与S-相反的另一端。峰移描述了模态响应中的位移;如果平均响应发生位移,但模态响应没有发生位移,则可以使用术语“面积位移”(Rilling, 1977)。刺激泛化和峰移的研究使用了人类和非人类。当使用非人类时,强化物通常是食物,受试者在有一个刺激(S+)而没有另一个刺激(S-)的情况下接受反应偶然食物的训练。当使用人类时,“强化物”通常是指示反应正确或不正确的反馈。泛化检验也各不相同。对于非人类,对测试刺激(包括S+)的反应被熄灭,以防止额外的学习。对于人类来说,关于反应准确性的有意义的反馈是被保留的(受试者可能被告知反应被记录了,但不知道反应是正确的还是不正确的;参见Derenne, 2006)。尽管在程序上有这些重要的差异,但对人类和非人类进行调查的许多变量已被证明具有类似的效果(例如,Wills & Mackintosh, 1998;托马斯,1993)。Keith(2002)还建议将峰移作为课堂实验室调查的主题。然而,基思建议这个项目应该用学生们创作的材料来进行。…
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A Computer-Based Laboratory Project for the Study of Stimulus Generalization and Peak Shift.
One of the difficulties faced by instructors of courses on the psychology of learning is to develop laboratory projects that effectively recreate the methods used in actual research. The traditional steady-state research methodology used with pigeons or rats does not readily lend itself to classroom investigation because of the extensive timeframe involved, the difficulty in procuring the necessary equipment, and problems with finding an appropriate housing arrangement for the subjects. Zuriff (2005) recommended that instructors use laboratory exercises that recreate the "golden oldies" of past behavior-analytic research, that is, classic experiments that illustrate basic learning processes. Among the numerous advantages of this approach is that laboratory exercises of this kind can be conducted with commercially available computer simulations of animal behavior if live animals are unavailable (e.g., Graf, 1995; Venneman & Knowles, 2005). The laboratory project described here is intended to help instructors create a laboratory project involving original data collection from live subjects. In brief, human participants are used in lieu of nonhumans. Also, the project does not require extensive investigations of single individuals; rather comparisons can be between-groups. The topic of the laboratory project is stimulus generalization and peak shift, an area that qualifies as both a "golden oldie" (cf. Ghirlanda & Enquist, 2003; Honig & Urcuioli, 1981) and the subject of ongoing research and theory development (e.g., Blanco, Santamaria, Chamizo, & Rodrigo, 2006; Derenne, Breitstein, & Cicha, 2008; Ghirlanda & Enquist, 2007; Lynn, Cnaani, & Papaj, 2005; Martindale, 2006; McLaren & Mackintosh, 2002; Spetch, Cheng, & Clifford, 2004). In the traditional method of measuring stimulus generalization, participants first receive generalization training followed by a generalization test. During training one stimulus (S+) is presented repeatedly and responses in its presence are reinforced. During testing, a variety of related stimuli are shown and stimulus generalization is measured as responses to stimuli other than S+. The graphical depiction of response frequency to each stimulus constitutes a generalization gradient. The generalization gradient is usually symmetrical in shape with the modal response or "peak" of the gradient directed to the S+. If participants receive discrimination training instead, responses to the S+ are reinforced while responses to a second stimulus (S-) are not. This procedure often produces an asymmetrical generalization gradient, with the gradient displaced away from S+ and towards stimuli on the opposite end of the stimulus dimension from S-. Peak shift describes displacement in the modal response; if the mean response is displaced but the modal response is not, then the term area shift may be used (Rilling, 1977). Research on stimulus generalizationn and peak shift has used both humans and nonhumans. When nonhumans are used, the reinforcer is typically food and subjects are trained with response-contingent food in the presence of one stimulus (S+) but not the other (S-). When humans are used, the "reinforcer" is typically feedback indicating that the response was correct or incorrect. The generalization test also varies. For nonhumans, responses to the test stimuli (including S+) are extinguished to prevent additional learning. For humans, meaningful feedback about response accuracy is withheld (subjects may be told that a response was recorded, but not whether the response was correct or incorrect; cf. Derenne, 2006). Despite these important differences in procedure, many of the variables investigated with humans and nonhumans have been shown to have a similar effect (e.g., Wills & Mackintosh, 1998; Thomas, 1993). Keith (2002) has also recommended peak shift as a topic of in-class laboratory investigations. Keith, however, suggested that the project should be conducted with materials that the students create. …
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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