Test theory without an answer key

A general model is presented for homogeneous, dichotomous items when the answer key is not known a priori. The model is structurally related to the two-class latent structure model with the roles of respondents and items interchanged. For very small sets of respondents, iterative maximum likelihood estimates of the parameters can be obtained by existing methods. For other situations, new estimation methods are developed and assessed with Monte Carlo data. The answer key can be accurately reconstructed with relatively small sets of respondents. The model is useful when a researcher wants to study objectively the knowledge possessed by members of a culturally coherent group that the researcher is not a member of.This research was supported by NSF Grant No. SES-8320173 to the authors. We gratefully acknowledge comments and suggestions from John Boyd, Tarow Indow, and Kathy Maher as well as the editor and several anonymous referees.     

Effects of relative reinforcer frequency on complex color detection

Pigeons were trained under a discrete-trials detection procedure in which one of a set of color stimuli was presented on the center key and a single response turned off the stimulus and illuminated two side keys. Single responses to one or the other side key produced occasional reinforcers depending on the value of the color stimulus. In Experiment 1, one color-stimulus set comprised 559, 564, 569, and 574 nm, and right-key pecks were occasionally reinforced following presentations of members of this set. The other stimulus set comprised 579, 584, 589, and 594 nm, and left-key pecks were occasionally reinforced following presentations of members of this set. Across seven experimental conditions, the left/(left + right) relative reinforcer frequency was varied from .1 to .9. In Experiment 2, one stimulus set contained only one member, 574 nm, and right-key responses were occasionally reinforced following its presentation. Over 12 experimental conditions, two manipulations were carried out. First, the number of stimuli comprising the other stimulus set was increased from one (579 nm) to two (579 and 584 nm) to three (579, 584, and 589 nm) and to four (579, 584, 589, and 594 nm), and left-key responses were reinforced occasionally following center-key presentations of members of this set. Second, for each stimulus combination, the left/(left + right) relative reinforcer frequency was varied from .1 to .5 to .9 across three experimental conditions. The principal finding of Experiments 1 and 2 was that reinforcers and stimuli interacted in their effects on behavior. In Experiment 3, pairs of adjacent stimuli (5 nm apart) in the range 559 to 594 nm were presented in each experimental condition, and the left/(left + right) relative reinforcer frequency was held constant at .5. The data from all three experiments were analyzed according to a detection model describing performance in multiple-stimulus two-response procedures. This model provided independent measures of stimulus discriminability, contingency discriminability, and bias. The analysis showed that (a) consistent with the color-naming function, pigeons were better able to discriminate between higher nanometer values than lower nanometer values; (b) their ability to discriminate between the stimuli was independent of the number of wavelengths comprising each stimulus set; (c) they allocated delivered reinforcers very accurately to the previously emitted response; and (d) no consistent biases emerged.     

Contributions of elicitation to measures of self-control

Pigeons' not pecking or pecking constituted choice between a delayed, large reinforcer and an immediate, small reinforcer (self-control) and at other times between a delayed reinforcer and no reinforcer (omission). Both a tone and a keylight were tested as choice signals, and the delayed reinforcer was either response independent or response dependent. Pigeons pecked during the choice signals on over 95% of the trials in the self-control procedure, and pecked during the choice signals on over 75% of the trials in the omission procedure. Consistent pecking was observed with either the tone or the keylight as a choice signal, with the exception that a tone paired with a response-independent delayed reinforcer did not maintain pecking in the omission procedure. Pigeons pecked during more choice signals when delayed reinforcers were response dependent than when the delayed reinforcers were response independent. These results indicate that Pavlovian conditioning influences self-control experiments, especially in single-key procedures.     

The interaction of stimulus and reinforcer control in complex temporal discrimination.

Six pigeons were trained in a discrete-trials signal-detection procedure to discriminate between a fixed-duration stimulus (5 s or 20 s) and a set of variable durations ranging from 2.5 s to 57.5 s in steps of 5 s. For each fixed-duration stimulus, the ratio of reinforcer frequencies contingent upon reporting the fixed versus the variable stimulus was systematically manipulated. Detection performance was well controlled by both the stimulus value and the reinforcer ratio. Both the discriminability between the fixed duration and the set of variable durations, and the discriminability between the fixed duration and each of the variable durations, were independent of the reinforcer-frequency ratio when discriminability was measured as log d. The sensitivity of response bias to reinforcement-ratio changes was independent of the value of the fixed duration, but was not independent of the discriminability of the variable durations from the fixed durations. Under current models, discriminability measures in complex temporal discrimination may be independent of biasing manipulations, but bias measures are not independent of stimulus values.     

Effects of differences between stimuli, responses, and reinforcer rates on conditional discrimination performance

In a discrete-trial conditional discrimination procedure, 4 pigeons obtained food reinforcers by pecking a key with a short latency on trials signaled by one stimulus and by pecking the same key with a long latency on trials signaled by a second stimulus. The physical difference between the two stimuli and the temporal separation between the latency values required for reinforcement were varied factorially over four sets of conditions, and the ratio of reinforcer rates for short and long latencies was varied within each set of conditions. Stimulus discrimination varied directly with both stimulus and response differences and was unaffected by the reinforcer ratio. Sensitivity to reinforcement, estimated by generalized-matching-law fits to the data within each set of conditions, varied directly with the response difference but inversely with the stimulus difference arranged between sets of conditions. Because variations in stimulus differences, response differences, and reinforcer differences did not have equivalent effects, these findings question the functional equivalence of the three terms of the discriminated operant: antecedent stimuli, behavior, and consequences.     

Human Signal-detection Performance: Effects Of Signal Presentation Probabilities And Reinforcer Distributions

University students participated in one of four standard two-choice signal-detection experiments in which signal presentation probability was varied and the reinforcement distribution was held constant and equal. In Experiments 1, 3 and 4, subjects' performance showed a systematic response bias for reporting the stimulus presented least often. Experiments 1 and 4 showed that this effect was reliable with extended training and monetary, rather than point, reinforcement. In Experiment 2, all correct responses were signaled in some way, and this produced the opposite relationship between signal presentation probability and response bias. Experiments 1 and 3 found that explicitly deducting money (intended as punishment) for equal numbers of incorrect responses on each alternative, or varying the obtained overall rate of reinforcement, produced no clear change in response bias. The bias, shown by humans, for reporting the stimulus presented least often remains a challenge for theories of stimulus detection.     

Detecting a nonevent: Delayed presence-versus-absence discrimination in pigeons

Eight pigeons were trained on a delayed presence-versus-absence discrimination paradigm in which a sample stimulus was presented on some trials but not on others. If a sample was presented, then a response to one choice key produced food. If no sample was presented, a response to the other choice key produced food. The basic finding was that performance remained constant and well above 50% correct on no-sample trials as the retention interval increased, whereas performance dropped precipitously (to below 50% correct) on sample trials. In the second phase of the experiment, all of the trials were no-sample trials, and reinforcers were delivered probabilistically for one group of pigeons and according to time-based schedules for the other group. The exact reinforcement probabilities used in Phase 2 were those calculated to be in effect on no-sample trials in Phase 1 (according to a discrete-state model of performance). Subjects did not show exclusive preference for the richer alternative on no-sample trials in the first phase, but those in the probabilistic group developed near-exclusive preference for the richer alternative during the second phase. These data are inconsistent with the predictions of the discrete-state model, but are easily accommodated by an account based on signal detection theory, which also can be applied effectively to discrimination of event duration and the “subjective shortening” effect.     

On the discriminability of stimulus duration.

The performance of pigeons trained to detect differences in the duration of stimuli was analysed using a matching model of signal detection. Two white stimuli, S1 and S2, differing in duration, were arranged with equal probability on the center key of a three-key chamber. S1 was systematically varied from 5 seconds to 25 seconds while S2 remained constant at 30 seconds. On completion of the center-key stimulus, a peck on the center key turned on the two red side keys. A left-key response was "correct" when S1 had been in effect on the center key and a right-key response was "correct" on S2 trials. A correct response produced a 3-second magazine light accompanied intermittently by food. Incorrect responses produced 3-second blackouts. Detection performance was measured under two procedures. In the first, the obtained reinforcement ratio was uncontrolled by allowing the number of food reinforcements obtained for correct left- and right-key responses to vary as the stimuli were changed. In the second procedure, the presentation of food reinforcement was controlled by holding the obtained reinforcement ratio constant. Discriminability changed as a function of stimulus differences under both procedures. No such trend was found in response bias.     

视觉注意捕获的快速脱离假说与信号抑制假说

快速脱离假说和信号抑制假说都是将传统的自下而上捕获和自上而下控制结合起来的混合模式假说。快速脱离假说认为突显干扰物总能在第一时间自下而上地捕获注意, 当突显干扰物与任务要求不符时, 注意会迅速脱离该位置。信号抑制假说认为突显干扰物都会产生“注意我”的信号, 当突显干扰物与任务要求不符时, 该信号会被自上而下地抑制以阻止注意捕获发生。前者相关的研究多采用空间线索提示范式和眼动脱离范式, 实验中被试采取独子探测策略, 而后者相关的研究多采用额外单例范式的变式, 实验中被试采取特征探测策略。未来研究应采用不同的刺激类型和实验方法进一步为两个假说提供证据支持, 同时要关注奖赏、训练等因素对“捕获-脱离”和“信号-抑制”的影响。     

Effects of stop signal modality, stop signal intensity and tracking method on inhibitory performance as determined by use of the stop signal paradigm

In Experiment 1, the effects of stop signal modality on the speed and efficiency of the inhibition process were examined. Stop signal reaction time (SSRT) and inhibition function slope in an auditory stop signal condition were compared to SSRT and inhibition function slope in a visual stop signal condition. It was found that auditory stop signals compared to visual stop signals enhanced both the speed and efficiency of stopping. The modality effects were attributed to differences in the neurophysiological processes underlying perception. However, Experiment 2 demonstrated that the modality difference was larger for 80 dB(A) auditory stop signals than 60 dB(A) auditory stop signals. This effect was reconciled with the suggestion that loud tones are more capable of eliciting immediate arousing effects on motor processes than weak tones and visual stimuli. The second purpose of the present investigation was to explore the utility (and potential advantages) of an alternative way of setting stop signal delay relative to mean reaction time (MRT). The method that was suggested compensates for inter-individual differences in primary task reaction speed by setting stop signal delays as proportions of the subjects' MRT.