What is learned when concept learning fails?-A theory of restricted-domain relational learning

被引:7
作者
Wright, Anthony A. [1 ]
Lickteig, Mark T. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Texas Hlth Sci Ctr Houston, Houston, TX USA
关键词
Abstract-concept learning; Relational learning; Item-specific learning; Matching-to-sample; Same-different; Monkeys; Pigeons; PIGEONS; MECHANISMS;
D O I
10.1016/j.lmot.2010.08.004
中图分类号
B84 [心理学];
学科分类号
04 ; 0402 ;
摘要
Two matching-to-sample (MTS) and four same/different (S/D) experiments employed tests to distinguish between item-specific learning and relational learning. One MTS experiment showed item-specific learning when concept learning failed (i.e., no novel-stimulus transfer). Another MTS experiment showed item-specific learning when pigeons' novel-stimulus transfer decreased because they chose familiar training comparisons instead of matching novel comparisons. In 8-item and 3-item S/D tasks, pigeons and monkeys were accurate with unfamiliar training-stimulus pairings, stimulus inversions, and distorted stimuli, suggesting relational learning within a domain restricted to the training stimuli (i.e., no novel-stimulus transfer). In S/D tasks, pigeons with previous 8-item training showed less transfer than those without prior training, suggesting a carryover of restricted-domain relational learning. Pigeons shifted from 1024-item to 8-item S/D tasks showed reinstatement of restricted-domain relational learning. These findings are important in specifying which types of learning occur in these tasks, showing that subjects failing novel-stimulus transfer are not required to switch from item-specific to relational learning as a training set is expanded, and demonstrating that concept learning failure is not proof of item-specific learning. (C) 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:273 / 286
页数:14
相关论文
共 34 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 1997, Primate cognition
[2]   SYMBOLIC MATCHING BY PIGEONS - RATE OF LEARNING COMPLEX DISCRIMINATIONS PREDICTED FROM SIMPLE DISCRIMINATIONS [J].
CARTER, DE ;
ECKERMAN, DA .
SCIENCE, 1975, 187 (4177) :662-664
[3]  
CARTER DE, 1978, ANALYSIS, V29, P565
[4]  
CHEN Z, 2004, COGNITION, V30, P583
[5]   EXTENT AND LIMITS OF THE MATCHING CONCEPT IN MONKEYS (CEBUS-APELLA) [J].
DAMATO, MR ;
SALMON, DP ;
COLOMBO, M .
JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY-ANIMAL BEHAVIOR PROCESSES, 1985, 11 (01) :35-51
[6]   A theory of the discovery and predication of relational concepts [J].
Doumas, Leonidas A. A. ;
Hummel, John E. ;
Sandhofer, Catherine M. .
PSYCHOLOGICAL REVIEW, 2008, 115 (01) :1-43
[7]   Individual differences: Either relational learning or item-specific learning in a same/different task [J].
Elmore, L. Caitlin ;
Wright, Anthony A. ;
Rivera, Jacquelyne J. ;
Katz, Jeffrey S. .
LEARNING & BEHAVIOR, 2009, 37 (02) :204-213
[8]   METAPHOR AS STRUCTURE MAPPING - THE RELATIONAL SHIFT [J].
GENTNER, D .
CHILD DEVELOPMENT, 1988, 59 (01) :47-59
[9]  
Gentner D., 1991, PERSPECTIVES LANGUAG, P225, DOI DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511983689.008
[10]  
Gentner D, 2003, BRADFORD BOOKS, P195