scholarly journals SOME EFFECTS OF INTERTRIAL-INTERVAL DURATION ON DISCRETE-TRIAL CHOICE

1999 ◽  
Vol 71 (3) ◽  
pp. 375-393 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. R. Jones ◽  
J. Moore
2014 ◽  
Vol 103 (1) ◽  
pp. 153-165 ◽  
Author(s):  
John R. Smethells ◽  
Mark P. Reilly

2017 ◽  
Vol 54 (8) ◽  
pp. 1151-1162 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rebecca J. Compton ◽  
Elizabeth Heaton ◽  
Emily Ozer

1965 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 835-843 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert D. Fitzgerald ◽  
Judson S. Brown

The wheel-turning performance of 140 hooded rats was studied both in a free-responding and in a discrete-trial avoidance situation. A 3 × 2 × 2 design, involving comparisons of three intertrial intervals (15, 30, and 60 sec.), two CS-UCS intervals (constant and variable), and two wheel-rotation criteria (90° and 360°), was employed in the free-responding condition. Differential avoidance was found to be a positive increasing function of the length of the intertrial interval, but it was not affected substantially by CS-UCS interval or by the rotation requirement. No group's performance exceeded 42% on any day. Performance with the discrete-trial technique improved significantly in the case of the 15 sec. ITI but not for the 60-sec. ITI. Problems involved in making meaningful comparisons of free-responding and discrete-trial procedures were discussed.


1974 ◽  
Vol 34 (1) ◽  
pp. 107-117
Author(s):  
G. C. Jernstedt

College students made observing responses in a discrete-trial instrumental-conditioning situation. Intertrial intervals from 1 to 10 sec. were factorially combined with patterns of reinforcement involving different total numbers of non-reinforcements, numbers of successively occurring non-reinforcements, and numbers of non-reinforced—reinforced trial transitions. In agreement with previous studies with rats, Exp. 1 indicated that intertrial interval interacts with pattern of reinforcement and accounts for a large percentage of the total variance. Contrary to previous studies with rats, Exp. 2 indicated that the effects of intertrial interval with humans are due to more than just those intertrial intervals near a non-reinforced—reinforced trial transition. Though much of the basic human and animal partial-reinforcement data are similar, the theoretical accounts apparently should differ.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document