Selective Attention in Animal Discrimination Learning

2000 ◽  
Vol 127 (1) ◽  
pp. 45-66 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas R. Zentall ◽  
Donald A. Riley
Keyword(s):  
Selective Attention ◽  
Discrimination Learning ◽  
Animal Discrimination Learning

Use of Criterial Measures in Animal Discrimination Learning Experiments

1968 ◽  
Vol 23 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 1335-1338 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. H. Winefield ◽  
M. A. Jeeves
Keyword(s):  
Discrimination Learning ◽  
Task Difficulty ◽  
Conditional Discriminations ◽  
Animal Discrimination Learning ◽  
And Performance ◽  
High Level ◽  
And Task

Findings from 2 experiments are described in which rats were overtrained on black/white and conditional discriminations. on the former, performance improved up to criterion and thereafter was maintained at a high level. on the latter, more difficult task, behaviour was less consistent and performance deteriorated with overtraining. A relation between elimination of position responses and task difficulty is suggested, and implications for the use of learning criteria are discussed.

Selective attention and pigeons’ multiple necessary cues discrimination learning

2015 ◽  
Vol 112 ◽  
pp. 61-71 ◽  
Author(s):  
Y. Teng ◽  
O.V. Vyazovska ◽  
E.A. Wasserman
Keyword(s):  
Selective Attention ◽  
Discrimination Learning

Discrimination of Word-Like Compound Visual Stimuli by Monkeys

1977 ◽  
Vol 29 (4) ◽  
pp. 589-596 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Gaffan
Keyword(s):  
Theoretical Analysis ◽  
Discrimination Learning ◽  
Visual Discrimination ◽  
Generalization Test ◽  
Visual Stimuli ◽  
Negative Stimulus ◽  
Initial Training ◽  
Animal Discrimination Learning ◽  
Positive Stimuli ◽  
Negative Stimuli

In Experiment I, two monkeys solved a successive visual discrimination in which the four positive stimuli were the visual arrays RIM, LID, RAD and LAM while the four negative stimuli were RID, LIM, RAM and LAD. In Experiment II the same monkeys first learned a discrimination where the positive stimuli were pairs of letters (e.g. OB and AK) while the negative stimulus was the letter I; in a subsequent generalization test with all four possible pairings of the stimulus elements that had been positive during training (i.e. with OB, AK, OK and AB) the monkeys responded more strongly to the pairs that had been present in initial training. These results were discussed in relation to the theoretical analysis of configurational cues in animal discrimination learning and to the mechanism underlying visual discrimination of words by people.

Successive Reversals Involving Two Cues

1966 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 97-102 ◽  
Author(s):  
N. S. Sutherland
Keyword(s):  
Selective Attention ◽  
Discrimination Learning ◽  
Visual Discrimination ◽  
Process Model ◽  
Discrimination Problem

Rats were trained on a visual discrimination problem with two relevant cues—brightness and orientation. They were then given eight reversals in succession on the same problem. After reversals 7 and 8 they were tested with each cue presented on its own to see how much they had learned about each. Individual animals tended to reverse the cue about which they learned more from reversals 7 to 8, so that animals that had learned reversal 7 mainly in terms of the brightness cue learned reversal 8 mainly in terms of the orientation cue and vice versa. The result provides further confirmation for a two-process model of discrimination learning in which one process is that of selective attention

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document