scholarly journals Discrimination learning and behavioral contrast as a function of component duration

1973 ◽  
Vol 2 (5) ◽  
pp. 268-270
Author(s):  
James F. Dickson ◽  
Terry E. Zuehlke
Keyword(s):  
Discrimination Learning ◽  
Behavioral Contrast ◽  
Component Duration

scholarly journals Behavioral contrast as a function of component duration and baseline rate of reinforcement

1986 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 173-183 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frances K. Mcsweeney ◽  
James D. Dougan ◽  
Jennifer Higa ◽  
Valeri A. Farmer
Keyword(s):  
Behavioral Contrast ◽  
Component Duration ◽  
Baseline Rate

scholarly journals BEHAVIORAL CONTRAST FOR KEY PECKING AS A FUNCTION OF COMPONENT DURATION WHEN ONLY ONE COMPONENT VARIES

1993 ◽  
Vol 60 (2) ◽  
pp. 331-343 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frances K. McSweeney ◽  
Cam L. Melville
Keyword(s):  
Behavioral Contrast ◽  
Component Duration ◽  
Key Pecking

Behavioral Contrast in Errorless Discrimination Learning

1973 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas L. Kodera ◽  
Mark Rilling
Keyword(s):  
Discrimination Learning ◽  
Behavioral Contrast

scholarly journals Behavioral contrast as a function of component duration for leverpressing using a within-session procedure

1991 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 71-80 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frances K. McSweeney ◽  
Cam L. Melville
Keyword(s):  
Behavioral Contrast ◽  
Component Duration

scholarly journals An analysis of the relationship between behavioral contrast and responding to S− in successive discrimination learning

1975 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 205-208 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert L. Welker ◽  
Charles F. Hickis ◽  
David R. Thomas ◽  
James F. Dickson
Keyword(s):  
Discrimination Learning ◽  
Behavioral Contrast ◽  
Successive Discrimination ◽  
The Relationship

Behavioral Contrast on Mixed Schedules

1996 ◽  
Vol 78 (2) ◽  
pp. 673-674
Author(s):  
Gene D. Steinhauer
Keyword(s):  
Behavioral Contrast ◽  
Schedules Of Reinforcement ◽  
Component Duration ◽  
Positive Behavioral Contrast

Keypecking by 4 pigeons was studied on mixed schedules of reinforcement. Positive behavioral contrast was found when the schedule was shifted from Mixed VI VI to Mixed VI Extinction only when the VI schedule value was small relative to the component duration.

Distinctive Phonetic Features as Relevant and Irrelevant Stimulus Dimensions in Speech-Sound Discrimination Learning

1974 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 417-425
Author(s):  
Stuart I. Ritterman ◽  
Nancy C. Freeman
Keyword(s):  
College Students ◽  
Discrimination Learning ◽  
Irrelevant Dimension ◽  
Speech Sound ◽  
Irrelevant Stimulus ◽  
Relevant Dimension ◽  
Phonetic Features ◽  
Sound Discrimination ◽  
Nonsense Syllables

Thirty-two college students were required to learn the relevant dimension in each of two randomized lists of auditorily presented stimuli. The stimuli consisted of seven pairs of CV nonsense syllables differing by two relevant dimension units and from zero to seven irrelevant dimension units. Stimulus dimensions were determined according to Saporta’s units of difference. No significant differences in performance as a function of number of the irrelevant dimensions nor characteristics of the relevant dimension were observed.

Cognitive Development Meets Discrimination Learning

1996 ◽  
Vol 41 (11) ◽  
pp. 1109-1110
Author(s):  
Deborah G. Kemler Nelson
Keyword(s):  
Cognitive Development ◽  
Discrimination Learning

Temporal Discrimination Learning Based on Feature-Target Intervals

2000 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. James Kehoe ◽  
Kristin G. Boesenberg ◽  
Natasha White ◽  
Benjamin Carr ◽  
Gabrielle Weidemann
Keyword(s):  
Discrimination Learning ◽  
Temporal Discrimination ◽  
Feature Target
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document