Motor performance and concurrent cognitive tasks

Twenty students tapped between two targets while concurrently performing either a verbal or a visuospatial cognitive task. Speed of tapping and consistency revealed right- and left-hand disruption during solving either the con-current verbal or visuospatial task respectively. Accuracy of performance in terms of hitting the targets was not selectively disrupted by the cognitive activity. The results are discussed in terms of an attentional model of lateralization of cerebral function.     

Stimulus control of delayed matching in pigeons: Directed forgetting

Pigeons were trained in delayed matching-to-sample with two postsample stimuli. A postsample R-cue signaled that a matching choice phase would follow. A postsample F-cue signaled that a matching choice phase would not follow. Previous research found reduced matching accuracy on F-cued probe trials when comparison stimuli were presented in the choice phase. The present four experiments systematically varied the events following an F-cue to determine the conditions under which the F-cue reduces delayed-matching accuracy. When F-cues and R-cues controlled different behavior, matching on probe trials was poor. When both cues controlled the same behavior, matching on probe trials was good. This result is best explained by the theory that comparison stimuli retrieve the sample representation, but only in the behavioral context established by the R-cue. The present research supports the view that response-produced stimuli serve a contextual role in animal short-term memory.     

The effects of modifying consummatory behavior on the topography of the autoshaped pecking response in pigeons

The autoshaped responses of two debeaked pigeons that had developed modified eating behavior were compared to the autoshaped responses of three control subjects that ate grain normally. The control subjects exhibited keylight responding that was judged normal by two independent raters. The debeaked subjects pecked the key and ate grain with both normal and modified responses. The results of this study demostrate that an autoshaping procedure using grain as an appetitive stimulus may be used to establish a response that is not biologically preorganized.     

Duration-reduction of avoidance sessions as negative reinforcement

Five rats were exposed to a shock-postponement procedure in which responses on each of two levers initially had equivalent effects. After an initial training sequence that ensured at least some responding on each lever, an additional consequence was made conjointly operative on the previously less-preferred lever for each animal. Each response on this lever continued to postpone shock, but also reduced the session duration by one minute. The conjoint contingencies were operative until, through session-shortening responses and the passage of time, the session was scheduled to end in two minutes; during the final two minutes the session-shortening contingency was disabled while the shock-postponement contingency continued to be operative on both levers. When responding shifted to a predominance on the session-shortening lever, the conjoint contingency was shifted to the other lever; for four of the five rats this reversal was followed by two additional reversals. Two of the rats' responding showed clear, strong, and unambiguous sensitivity to the session-shortening contingency. The responding of two others was also systematically controlled by that contingency, but the effects were less clearcut. The fifth animal showed an initial shift when session-shortening was introduced, but its subsequent behavior proved insensitive to reversals of procedure. The results clearly indicate a sensitivity of behavior to events on a time scale quite distinct from that of immediate consequences. They also support an interpretation of avoidance sessions, considered in their entirety, as events whose contingent relationship to behavior can affect that behavior—even in the absence of stimuli that delineate those relationships. Finally, these results support an interpretation of aversively based conditioning within a broader context, analogous to the “open versus closed economy” interpretation of appetitively controlled behavior.     

Choice, changeover, and travel: A quantitative model

Six pigeons were trained on concurrent variable-interval schedules in which responding on fixed-interval schedules was required to give access to the alternate schedule. Responding on the concurrent schedules was not allowed, after changing over had commenced, until the changeover schedule had been completed. In Parts 1 to 3 of the experiment, the changeover fixed-interval schedules were equal and were 0 s, 10 s, and 20 s, respectively. In each part, the relative frequency of reinforcement obtained on the concurrent schedules was varied over at least five conditions. In Part 4, the concurrent schedules were equal, and one changeover fixed-interval schedule was twice the other. Under these conditions, the absolute sizes of the changeover schedules were varied. Increasing the changeover requirement from 0 s to 10 s (Parts 1 and 2) resulted in increases in the sensitivity of behavior allocation to reinforcers obtained, but no further increase was obtained when the changeover schedules were increased to 20 s (Part 3). In Part 4, performance was biased towards the concurrent schedule that took less time to enter. These results are consistent with a subtractive punishment model of travel in which the degree of punishment is measured by the number of reinforcers apparently lost from a schedule when the subject changes to that schedule. Absolute times spent on the main keys could be accurately described by a previous model of changeover performance.     

Concurrent schedules: Effects of time- and response-allocation constraints

Five pigeons were trained on concurrent variable-interval schedules arranged on two keys. In Part 1 of the experiment, the subjects responded under no constraints, and the ratios of reinforcers obtainable were varied over five levels. In Part 2, the conditions of the experiment were changed such that the time spent responding on the left key before a subsequent changeover to the right key determined the minimum time that must be spent responding on the right key before a changeover to the left key could occur. When the left key provided a higher reinforcer rate than the right key, this procedure ensured that the time allocated to the two keys was approximately equal. The data showed that such a time-allocation constraint only marginally constrained response allocation. In Part 3, the numbers of responses emitted on the left key before a changeover to the right key determined the minimum number of responses that had to be emitted on the right key before a changeover to the left key could occur. This response constraint completely constrained time allocation. These data are consistent with the view that response allocation is a fundamental process (and time allocation a derivative process), or that response and time allocation are independently controlled, in concurrent-schedule performance.     

Analyzing the reinforcement process at the human level: Can application and behavioristic interpretation replace laboratory research?

Critics have questioned the value of human operant conditioning experiments in the study of fundamental processes of reinforcement. Contradictory results from human and animal experiments have been attributed to the complex social and verbal history of the human subject. On these grounds, it has been contended that procedures that mimic those conventionally used with animal subjects represent a "poor analytic preparation" for the explication of reinforcement principles. In defending the use of conventional operant methods for human research, we make three points: (a) Historical variables play a critical role in research on processes of reinforcement, regardless of whether the subjects are humans or animals. (b) Techniques are available for detecting, analyzing, and counteracting such historical and extra-experimental influences; these include long-term observations, steady state designs, and, when variables are not amenable to direct control (e.g., age, gender, species), selection of subjects with common characteristics. (c) Other forms of evidence that might be used to validate conditioning principles-applied behavior analysis and behavioristic interpretation-have inherent limitations and cannot substitute for experimental analysis. We conclude that human operant conditioning experiments are essential for the analysis of the reinforcement process at the human level, but caution that their value depends on the extent to which the traditional methods of the experimental analysis of behavior are properly applied.     

认知风格与教学策略(节译)

一般地说,认知风格可以被理解为个人感知、组织以及评价信息的独特方式。然而,除此之外,本文要论及的四项系列研究运用了两种量表,它们反映了对认知风格的不同而独特的解释。一种量表是迈尔斯—布立格斯类型量表(Myers—Briggs Type lndlcator),这是一套著名的量表,它是以荣格(Jungian)的人格理