这与模式有关:内隐学习中的模式和随机序列之间的选择。

IF 1.2 4区 心理学 Q4 BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES Journal of Experimental Psychology-Animal Learning and Cognition Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.1037/xan0000335
Charles Locurto, James Donohue, Amy Hasenauer, Daniel McMaster, Matthew Morrow, Gabriela Castro, Pilar Segura Tobarra, Alexandra Eckert
{"title":"这与模式有关:内隐学习中的模式和随机序列之间的选择。","authors":"Charles Locurto,&nbsp;James Donohue,&nbsp;Amy Hasenauer,&nbsp;Daniel McMaster,&nbsp;Matthew Morrow,&nbsp;Gabriela Castro,&nbsp;Pilar Segura Tobarra,&nbsp;Alexandra Eckert","doi":"10.1037/xan0000335","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Three experiments examined the preference for pattern versus random sequences. In all experiments the elements composing the sequences were visual images presented sequentially on a touchscreen. Reinforcement was randomly programmed on .16 of the element presentations for each type of trial. For pattern sequences the elements occurred in the same order and at the same location on each presentation of the sequence. For random sequences the elements could occur in any order on a given trial. The experiments were conducted in two phases. In the first phase, termed forced-choice, subjects, male Silver Kings, were given either a pattern sequence or a random sequence to work on in a given trial. Subjects received this first phase until performance on each type of sequence was equated. In the second phase, termed free-choice, subjects could choose which of the two sequences to work on in each trial. Results indicated that although performance was equated between the two types of sequences in the forced-choice phase, when given the choice subjects selected the pattern sequence on 70 percent of the trials. This finding held in Experiments 1 and 2 although there were procedural differences between these two experiments. In Experiment 3 the reinforcement probability for random sequences was increased to be 50 percent higher than for pattern sequence. In this arrangement subjects chose random sequences on nearly 83 percent of the free-choice trials, indicating that the preference for pattern sequences was not intractable. Results suggest that the preference for pattern sequences that was observed when reinforcement was equated between the two types of sequences may have been the result of the added information concerning forthcoming element presentations that was available from pattern sequences. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 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":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"There's something about a pattern: Choice between pattern and random sequences in implicit learning.\",\"authors\":\"Charles Locurto,&nbsp;James Donohue,&nbsp;Amy Hasenauer,&nbsp;Daniel McMaster,&nbsp;Matthew Morrow,&nbsp;Gabriela Castro,&nbsp;Pilar Segura Tobarra,&nbsp;Alexandra Eckert\",\"doi\":\"10.1037/xan0000335\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Three experiments examined the preference for pattern versus random sequences. In all experiments the elements composing the sequences were visual images presented sequentially on a touchscreen. Reinforcement was randomly programmed on .16 of the element presentations for each type of trial. For pattern sequences the elements occurred in the same order and at the same location on each presentation of the sequence. For random sequences the elements could occur in any order on a given trial. The experiments were conducted in two phases. In the first phase, termed forced-choice, subjects, male Silver Kings, were given either a pattern sequence or a random sequence to work on in a given trial. Subjects received this first phase until performance on each type of sequence was equated. In the second phase, termed free-choice, subjects could choose which of the two sequences to work on in each trial. Results indicated that although performance was equated between the two types of sequences in the forced-choice phase, when given the choice subjects selected the pattern sequence on 70 percent of the trials. This finding held in Experiments 1 and 2 although there were procedural differences between these two experiments. In Experiment 3 the reinforcement probability for random sequences was increased to be 50 percent higher than for pattern sequence. In this arrangement subjects chose random sequences on nearly 83 percent of the free-choice trials, indicating that the preference for pattern sequences was not intractable. Results suggest that the preference for pattern sequences that was observed when reinforcement was equated between the two types of sequences may have been the result of the added information concerning forthcoming element presentations that was available from pattern sequences. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 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\":\"2023-01-01\",\"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/xan0000335\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Experimental Psychology-Animal Learning and Cognition","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/xan0000335","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

摘要

三个实验检验了对模式和随机序列的偏好。在所有的实验中,组成序列的元素都是在触摸屏上依次呈现的视觉图像。每种类型的试验在0.16个元素演示上随机编程强化。对于模式序列,元素在序列的每次呈现中以相同的顺序和相同的位置出现。对于随机序列,元素可以在给定的试验中以任意顺序出现。实验分两个阶段进行。在第一阶段,被称为强迫选择,受试者,男性银王,被给予一个模式序列或随机序列在给定的试验中工作。受试者接受第一阶段,直到在每种类型序列上的表现相等。在第二阶段,被称为自由选择,受试者可以在每次试验中选择两个序列中的哪一个。结果表明,尽管在强制选择阶段,两种类型的序列的表现是相等的,但当给出选择时,70%的受试者选择了模式序列。这一发现在实验1和2中成立,尽管这两个实验之间存在程序差异。在实验3中,随机序列的强化概率增加到比模式序列高50%。在这种安排下,受试者在近83%的自由选择试验中选择随机序列,这表明对模式序列的偏好并不是难以解决的。结果表明,当两种类型的序列之间的强化相等时,观察到对模式序列的偏好可能是模式序列中可获得的关于即将到来的元素呈现的附加信息的结果。(PsycInfo数据库记录(c) 2023 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。
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
There's something about a pattern: Choice between pattern and random sequences in implicit learning.

Three experiments examined the preference for pattern versus random sequences. In all experiments the elements composing the sequences were visual images presented sequentially on a touchscreen. Reinforcement was randomly programmed on .16 of the element presentations for each type of trial. For pattern sequences the elements occurred in the same order and at the same location on each presentation of the sequence. For random sequences the elements could occur in any order on a given trial. The experiments were conducted in two phases. In the first phase, termed forced-choice, subjects, male Silver Kings, were given either a pattern sequence or a random sequence to work on in a given trial. Subjects received this first phase until performance on each type of sequence was equated. In the second phase, termed free-choice, subjects could choose which of the two sequences to work on in each trial. Results indicated that although performance was equated between the two types of sequences in the forced-choice phase, when given the choice subjects selected the pattern sequence on 70 percent of the trials. This finding held in Experiments 1 and 2 although there were procedural differences between these two experiments. In Experiment 3 the reinforcement probability for random sequences was increased to be 50 percent higher than for pattern sequence. In this arrangement subjects chose random sequences on nearly 83 percent of the free-choice trials, indicating that the preference for pattern sequences was not intractable. Results suggest that the preference for pattern sequences that was observed when reinforcement was equated between the two types of sequences may have been the result of the added information concerning forthcoming element presentations that was available from pattern sequences. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

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
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