Psychophysics of associative learning: Quantitative properties of subjective contingency.

IF 1.3 4区 心理学 Journal of Experimental Psychology-Animal Learning and Cognition Pub Date : 2018-01-01 Epub Date: 2017-11-20 DOI:10.1037/xan0000153
Susana Maia, Françoise Lefèvre, Jérémie Jozefowiez
{"title":"Psychophysics of associative learning: Quantitative properties of subjective contingency.","authors":"Susana Maia,&nbsp;Françoise Lefèvre,&nbsp;Jérémie Jozefowiez","doi":"10.1037/xan0000153","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Allan and collaborators (Allan, Hannah, Crump, & Siegel, 2008; Allan, Siegel, & Tangen, 2005; Siegel, Allan, Hannah, & Crump, 2009) recently proposed to apply signal detection theory to the analysis of contingency judgment tasks. When exposed to a flow of stimuli, participants are asked to judge whether there is a contingent relation between a cue and an outcome, that is, whether the subjective cue-outcome contingency exceeds a decision threshold. In this context, we tested the following hypotheses regarding the relation between objective and subjective cue-outcome contingency: (a) The underlying distributions of subjective cue-outcome contingency are Gaussian; (b) The mean distribution of subjective contingency is a linear function of objective cue-outcome contingency; and (c) The variance in the distribution of subjective contingency is constant. The hypotheses were tested by combining a streamed-trial contingency assessment task with a confidence rating procedure. Participants were exposed to rapid flows of stimuli at the end of which they had to judge whether an outcome was more (Experiment 1) or less (Experiment 2) likely to appear following a cue and how sure they were of their judgment. We found that although Hypothesis A seems reasonable, Hypotheses B and C were not. Regarding Hypothesis B, participants were more sensitive to positive than to negative contingencies. Regarding Hypothesis C, the perceived cue-outcome contingency became more variable when the contingency became more positive or negative, but only to a slight extent. (PsycINFO Database Record</p>","PeriodicalId":51088,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Experimental Psychology-Animal Learning and Cognition","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2018-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Experimental Psychology-Animal Learning and Cognition","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/xan0000153","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2017/11/20 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

Allan and collaborators (Allan, Hannah, Crump, & Siegel, 2008; Allan, Siegel, & Tangen, 2005; Siegel, Allan, Hannah, & Crump, 2009) recently proposed to apply signal detection theory to the analysis of contingency judgment tasks. When exposed to a flow of stimuli, participants are asked to judge whether there is a contingent relation between a cue and an outcome, that is, whether the subjective cue-outcome contingency exceeds a decision threshold. In this context, we tested the following hypotheses regarding the relation between objective and subjective cue-outcome contingency: (a) The underlying distributions of subjective cue-outcome contingency are Gaussian; (b) The mean distribution of subjective contingency is a linear function of objective cue-outcome contingency; and (c) The variance in the distribution of subjective contingency is constant. The hypotheses were tested by combining a streamed-trial contingency assessment task with a confidence rating procedure. Participants were exposed to rapid flows of stimuli at the end of which they had to judge whether an outcome was more (Experiment 1) or less (Experiment 2) likely to appear following a cue and how sure they were of their judgment. We found that although Hypothesis A seems reasonable, Hypotheses B and C were not. Regarding Hypothesis B, participants were more sensitive to positive than to negative contingencies. Regarding Hypothesis C, the perceived cue-outcome contingency became more variable when the contingency became more positive or negative, but only to a slight extent. (PsycINFO Database Record

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
联想学习的心理物理学:主观偶然性的数量特性。
艾伦和合作者(艾伦、汉娜、克伦普和西格尔,2008;Allan, Siegel, & Tangen, 2005;Siegel, Allan, Hannah, & Crump, 2009)最近提出将信号检测理论应用于权变判断任务的分析。当暴露于刺激流时,参与者被要求判断线索和结果之间是否存在偶然关系,即主观线索-结果偶然性是否超过决策阈值。在此背景下,我们测试了以下关于客观和主观线索-结果偶然性之间关系的假设:(a)主观线索-结果偶然性的潜在分布是高斯分布;(b)主观偶然性的平均分布是客观线索-结果偶然性的线性函数;(c)主观偶然性分布的方差是恒定的。通过结合流试验应急评估任务和置信度评定程序对假设进行检验。参与者被暴露在快速的刺激流中,最后他们必须判断一个结果是更可能(实验1)还是更不可能(实验2)出现,以及他们对自己的判断有多确定。我们发现,虽然假设A似乎是合理的,但假设B和C却不是。在假设B中,参与者对积极偶然事件比消极偶然事件更敏感。在假设C中,当偶然性变得更积极或更消极时,感知到的线索-结果偶然性变得更可变,但只是在很小的程度上。(PsycINFO数据库记录
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
自引率
23.10%
发文量
0
审稿时长
>12 weeks
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
Valence generalization across nonrecurring structures. Learned biases in the processing of outcomes: A brief review of the outcome predictability effect. Conditioned inhibition: Historical critiques and controversies in the light of recent advances. The partial reinforcement extinction effect: The proportion of trials reinforced during conditioning predicts the number of trials to extinction. On the role of responses in Pavlovian acquisition.
×
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