scholarly journals Conditioned Reinforcement: the Effectiveness of Stimulus—Stimulus Pairing and Operant Discrimination Procedures

2018 ◽  
Vol 69 (1) ◽  
pp. 67-81 ◽  
Author(s):  
Monica Vandbakk ◽  
Heidi Skorge Olaff ◽  
Per Holth
1987 ◽  
Vol 52 (3) ◽  
pp. 294-299 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael A. Primus

Variable success in audiometric assessment of young children with operant conditioning indicates the need for systematic examination of commonly employed techniques. The current study investigated response and reinforcement features of two operant discrimination paradigms with normal I7-month-old children. Findings indicated more responses prior to the onset of habituation when the response task was based on complex central processing skills (localization and coordination of auditory/visual space) versus simple detection. Use of animation in toy reinforcers resulted in more than a twofold increase in the number of subject responses. Results showed no significant difference in response conditioning rate or consistency for the response tasks and forms of reinforcement examined.


1999 ◽  
Author(s):  
Allen E. Butt ◽  
Timothy D. Bowman ◽  
J. Scott Novotney ◽  
Jason L. Rogers ◽  
Ruth A. Stoehr

1973 ◽  
Vol 25 (4) ◽  
pp. 476-491 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nigel Harvey

In a same—different judgement task with successively presented signals, subjects matched dots in different vertical positions and tones of different frequencies intramodally and intermodally. The first and second stimuli of trials in each of the four modality conditions were drawn from a set consisting of two, three or five alternatives. In all intermodal set size conditions, the dimensions of pitch and vertical position were related by the same equivalence rule. While intramodal performance improvement depended only on the total number of practice trials at matching on the relevant dimensions, intermodal performance improvement appeared to be related to the number of trials practice with each heteromodal stimulus pairing in a particular set. After performance had approached asymptotic level neither intramodal nor intermodal matching reaction time depended on set size. Mean “same” reaction time was less than mean “different” reaction time, and this difference was greater for intermodal matching than for intramodal matching. The results indicated that intermodal equivalence exists between discrete stimulus values on heteromodal dimensions rather than between the dimensions themselves.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document