Probability learning as a function of momentary reinforcement probability

Pigeons were trained on a probability learning task where the overall reinforcement probability was 0.50 for each response alternative but where the momentary reinforcement probability differed and depended upon the outcome of the preceding trial. In all cases, the maximum reinforcement occurred with a “win-stay, lose-shift” response pattern. When both position and color were relevant cues, the optimal response pattern was learned when the reinforcement probability for repeating the just-reinforced response was 0.80 but not when the probability was 0.65. When only color was relevant, learning occurred much more slowly, and only for subjects trained on large fixed ratio requirements.     

Book Reviews

S idney L evin and R alph J. K ahana (Eds). Psychodynamic studies on ageing
H ans D ieckmann : Probleme der Lebensmitte—Krise, Umkehr, Neubeginn     

Book reviews

Animal Discrimination Learning. Edited by R. M. Gilbert and N. S. Sutherland. London: Academic Press. 1969. Pp. xvi + 501. 1358.

Luce, R. D. and Tukey, J. W. (1964). Simultaneous conjoint measurement: a new type of fundamental measurement. J. math. Psychol. I, 1-27.

Discrimination Learning. By D. A. Riley. Boston: Allyn and Bacon Inc. 1968. Pp. 172. Paperback 21s.

Annual Review of Psychology. Vol. 20. Palo Alto: Annual Reviews Inc. 1969. Pp. ix + 544. $9.00.

Cutaneous Sensation. By David Sinclair. London: Oxford University Press. 1967. Pp. xii + 306. 63s.

Modelling of Thinking and the Mind.. By N. M. Amosov. Translated by L. Finegold. New York: Spartan Books. London: Macmillan. 11967. Pp. xiii + 192.

The Mind of Mnemonist. By A. R. Luria. London: Jonathan Cape. 1969. Pp. xi + 160. 25s.

Determinants of Infant Behaviour IV. Edited by B. M. Foss. London: Methuen. 1969. Pp. 303. £3 10s.

Brain and Behaviour. Volumes 1-4. Edited by Karl Pribram. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books Ltd. 1969. Pp. 496 +573 + 523 + 524. 12s. 6d. per volume.     

Tactile short-term memory

Subjects tried to recall the location of a tactile stimulus on the underside of the forearm after delays of 0, 3, 5, 10, 15, 30, 45 and 60 sec. When “rehearsal” was prevented by requiring subjects to count backwards during the delay, accuracy of recall decreased systematically reaching an asymptote after 45 sec. When subjects were left free to “rehearse,” this did not affect the decline in accuracy over the first 10 sec. Between 10 and 15 sec. there was a significant increase in accuracy followed by a slow decline which had not reached asymptote by 60 sec. It is suggested that tactile STM (short-term memory) depends on two processes, a fading sensory trace which is unaffected by distraction and a less labile system which does not appear to be verbal but which depends on “rehearsal.”     

A model for detection and recognition with signal uncertainty

A model for signal detectability suggested by Luce is extended to situations in which the observer is uncertain of some important characteristic of the signal, such as frequency. By making a single assumption concerning the observer's covert response behavior, two solutions are obtained corresponding to qualitatively different behavior. Decrements in detectability and in recognition with uncertainty are shown to be particular functions of discriminability and detectability of the stimuli in other situations. Relevant experimental data are considered.This work was supported by grant NSF-G5544 from the National Science Foundation. The author is indebted to R. Duncan Luce for critical discussion of the content and helpful suggestions concerning the form of this paper. Useful comments have been made by David M. Green, Francis W. Irwin, Roger M. Shepard, and W. P. Tanner, Jr.