Limits...
Asymmetry in the discrimination of quantity: The role of stimulus generalization.

Inman RA, Honey RC, Pearce JM - J Exp Psychol Anim Learn Cogn (2015)

Bottom Line: One group received a 20+/5- discrimination, with food signaled by 20 squares but not 5 squares; the other group received the opposite discrimination, 5+/20-.The 20+/5- discrimination was acquired more readily than 5+/20- in Experiments 1, 3a, 3b, and 4.The asymmetry in the acquisition of the magnitude discriminations in each experiment is attributed to inhibition being associated with the stimuli present during the ITI.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: School of Psychology, Cardiff University.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

The mean rates of responding to conditioned stimuli (CS) CS+ and CS– for the six sessions of training for the 20+/5– (left-hand panel), and 5+/20– (right-hand panel) groups of Experiment 1. Error bars represent ± SEM.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4593466&req=5

fig2: The mean rates of responding to conditioned stimuli (CS) CS+ and CS– for the six sessions of training for the 20+/5– (left-hand panel), and 5+/20– (right-hand panel) groups of Experiment 1. Error bars represent ± SEM.

Mentions: Figure 2 shows the group mean rates of responding by the two groups during the reinforced, CS+, and nonreinforced, CS–, stimuli, and during the pre-CS intervals, for the six sessions of discrimination training. The discrimination was acquired more readily by the 20+/5– than the 5+/20– group. These observations were supported by a three-way ANOVA of individual mean rates of responding during CS + and CS– for each of the six sessions, which revealed a significant, Stimulus × Group interaction, F(1, 14) = 6.07, p = .027, ηp2 = .30, 95% CI [.00, .57]. The remaining findings from the ANOVA were a significant effect of stimulus, F(1, 14) = 29.38, p < .001, ηp2 = .68, 95% CI [.29, .81], and session, F(5, 70) = 6.19, p < .001, ηp2 = .31, 95% CI [.10, .42], but not group, F < 1. The interactions of Session × Group, F(5, 70) = 4.0, p = .003, ηp2 = .22, 95% CI [.03, .33], and Stimulus × Session, F(5, 70) = 21.90, p < .001, ηp2 = .61, 95% CI [.43, .69], were significant, but the three-way interaction, F(5, 70) = 2.20, p = .064, was not significant. Tests of simple main effects based on the Stimulus × Group interaction revealed a significant difference in the rates of responding to CS+ and CS– for the 20+/5– group, F(1, 14) = 31.08, p < .001, ηp2 = .69, 95% CI [.31, .81], but not the 5+/20– group, F(1, 14) = 4.37, p = .055.


Asymmetry in the discrimination of quantity: The role of stimulus generalization.

Inman RA, Honey RC, Pearce JM - J Exp Psychol Anim Learn Cogn (2015)

The mean rates of responding to conditioned stimuli (CS) CS+ and CS– for the six sessions of training for the 20+/5– (left-hand panel), and 5+/20– (right-hand panel) groups of Experiment 1. Error bars represent ± SEM.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4593466&req=5

fig2: The mean rates of responding to conditioned stimuli (CS) CS+ and CS– for the six sessions of training for the 20+/5– (left-hand panel), and 5+/20– (right-hand panel) groups of Experiment 1. Error bars represent ± SEM.
Mentions: Figure 2 shows the group mean rates of responding by the two groups during the reinforced, CS+, and nonreinforced, CS–, stimuli, and during the pre-CS intervals, for the six sessions of discrimination training. The discrimination was acquired more readily by the 20+/5– than the 5+/20– group. These observations were supported by a three-way ANOVA of individual mean rates of responding during CS + and CS– for each of the six sessions, which revealed a significant, Stimulus × Group interaction, F(1, 14) = 6.07, p = .027, ηp2 = .30, 95% CI [.00, .57]. The remaining findings from the ANOVA were a significant effect of stimulus, F(1, 14) = 29.38, p < .001, ηp2 = .68, 95% CI [.29, .81], and session, F(5, 70) = 6.19, p < .001, ηp2 = .31, 95% CI [.10, .42], but not group, F < 1. The interactions of Session × Group, F(5, 70) = 4.0, p = .003, ηp2 = .22, 95% CI [.03, .33], and Stimulus × Session, F(5, 70) = 21.90, p < .001, ηp2 = .61, 95% CI [.43, .69], were significant, but the three-way interaction, F(5, 70) = 2.20, p = .064, was not significant. Tests of simple main effects based on the Stimulus × Group interaction revealed a significant difference in the rates of responding to CS+ and CS– for the 20+/5– group, F(1, 14) = 31.08, p < .001, ηp2 = .69, 95% CI [.31, .81], but not the 5+/20– group, F(1, 14) = 4.37, p = .055.

Bottom Line: One group received a 20+/5- discrimination, with food signaled by 20 squares but not 5 squares; the other group received the opposite discrimination, 5+/20-.The 20+/5- discrimination was acquired more readily than 5+/20- in Experiments 1, 3a, 3b, and 4.The asymmetry in the acquisition of the magnitude discriminations in each experiment is attributed to inhibition being associated with the stimuli present during the ITI.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: School of Psychology, Cardiff University.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus