Cue duration and trial spacing effects in contingency assessment in the streaming procedure with humans.

IF 1.2 4区 心理学 Q4 BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES Journal of Experimental Psychology-Animal Learning and Cognition Pub Date : 2024-04-01 DOI:10.1037/xan0000376
Jérémie Jozefowiez, Ralph R Miller
{"title":"Cue duration and trial spacing effects in contingency assessment in the streaming procedure with humans.","authors":"Jérémie Jozefowiez, Ralph R Miller","doi":"10.1037/xan0000376","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>According to the cycle/trial (C/T) rule, the rate of associative learning is a function of the ratio between the overall rate of U.S. presentation (C) and its rate in the presence of the conditioned stimulus (CS; [T]). This rule is well supported in studies with nonhumans. The present study was conducted to test whether it also applies to human contingency learning. In Experiment 1, participants were exposed to rapid streams of trials. Sensitivity to the cue-outcome contingency varied with both intertrial interval (ITI, which captures C) and cue duration, but the C/T rule was not respected, notably because the effect of ITI was much larger than the effect of cue duration. Experiment 2 showed that mere suppression of verbal strategies did not alter the magnitude of the ITI effect. Experiment 3 replicated Experiment 1 but with cue duration and ITI varied between 1,000 and 3,000 ms instead of between 100 and 1,000 ms. Performance was insensitive to both cue duration and ITI. This was not the consequence of Experiment 3 only varying the cue duration to ITI ratio by a factor of 3; in Experiment 4 where the cue duration was 100 ms, a 300-ms ITI was sufficient to observe an ITI effect. The lack of an ITI effect with a 1,000-ms cue and an ITI varying between 1,000 and 3,000 ms was replicated in Experiment 5. These results are discussed in light of how processes underlying associative learning might break down when events occur very rapidly. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":54259,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Experimental Psychology-Animal Learning and Cognition","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Experimental Psychology-Animal Learning and Cognition","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/xan0000376","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

According to the cycle/trial (C/T) rule, the rate of associative learning is a function of the ratio between the overall rate of U.S. presentation (C) and its rate in the presence of the conditioned stimulus (CS; [T]). This rule is well supported in studies with nonhumans. The present study was conducted to test whether it also applies to human contingency learning. In Experiment 1, participants were exposed to rapid streams of trials. Sensitivity to the cue-outcome contingency varied with both intertrial interval (ITI, which captures C) and cue duration, but the C/T rule was not respected, notably because the effect of ITI was much larger than the effect of cue duration. Experiment 2 showed that mere suppression of verbal strategies did not alter the magnitude of the ITI effect. Experiment 3 replicated Experiment 1 but with cue duration and ITI varied between 1,000 and 3,000 ms instead of between 100 and 1,000 ms. Performance was insensitive to both cue duration and ITI. This was not the consequence of Experiment 3 only varying the cue duration to ITI ratio by a factor of 3; in Experiment 4 where the cue duration was 100 ms, a 300-ms ITI was sufficient to observe an ITI effect. The lack of an ITI effect with a 1,000-ms cue and an ITI varying between 1,000 and 3,000 ms was replicated in Experiment 5. These results are discussed in light of how processes underlying associative learning might break down when events occur very rapidly. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
人流程序中或然性评估的提示持续时间和试验间隔效应。
根据周期/试验(C/T)规则,联想学习的速度是 U.S.呈现的总速度(C)与条件刺激(CS;[T])存在时的速度之比。这一规则在对非人类的研究中得到了很好的支持。本研究就是为了检验这一规律是否也适用于人类的条件学习。在实验 1 中,参与者暴露于快速的试验流中。对提示-结果或然性的敏感度随试验间歇(ITI,反映 C)和提示持续时间的变化而变化,但 C/T 规则并没有得到遵守,这主要是因为 ITI 的影响远远大于提示持续时间的影响。实验 2 表明,仅仅抑制言语策略并不能改变 ITI 效果的大小。实验 3 重复了实验 1,但提示持续时间和 ITI 在 1,000 至 3,000 毫秒之间变化,而不是在 100 至 1,000 毫秒之间变化。实验结果对提示持续时间和 ITI 都不敏感。这并不是实验 3 中提示持续时间与 ITI 比值仅变化 3 倍的结果;在实验 4 中,提示持续时间为 100 毫秒,300 毫秒的 ITI 就足以观察到 ITI 效应。在实验 5 中,1000 毫秒的提示和介于 1000 和 3000 毫秒之间的 ITI 都没有 ITI 效应。我们将从事件发生得非常快时,联想学习的基础过程可能如何崩溃的角度来讨论这些结果。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, 版权所有)。
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 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Experimental Psychology-Animal Learning and Cognition
Journal of Experimental Psychology-Animal Learning and Cognition Psychology-Experimental and Cognitive Psychology
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
23.10%
发文量
39
期刊介绍: The Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Learning and Cognition publishes experimental and theoretical studies concerning all aspects of animal behavior processes.
期刊最新文献
Impact of equivalence class training on same/different learning by pigeons. Test performance in optional shift and configural acquired equivalence are positively correlated. Contextual modulation of human associative learning following novelty-facilitated extinction, counterconditioning, and conventional extinction. Both probability and rate of reinforcement can affect the acquisition and maintenance of conditioned responses. Dual-system free-operant avoidance: Extension of a theory.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1