The Role of Adaptation-Level In Stimulus Generalization

Publisher Summary This chapter discusses the successes and failures of the Adaptation-level (AL) theory of stimulus generalization and provides an evaluation of its fruitfulness. The chapter describes the voluntary generalization experiments, which employs diverse stimulus dimensions such as lifted weight, wavelength, brightness, and line angle. Generally, the AL theory is extremely successful in predicting or interpreting the results of stimulus generalization experiments. With regard to the Central Tendency Effect, the central tendency shift occurs with reference to the psychological center (AL) of the generalization test series, which may not coincide with the physical center. In such cases, a shift of maximal responding from the training stimulus (TS) value may occur even when the test series is nominally symmetrical. In the choice paradigm, AL serves as the crossover point, such that stimuli above AL are to be responded to in one fashion and stimuli below AL are to be responded to in another. In the go/no-go situation, it appears that the TS are encoded not just with regard to their direction from, but also their distance from, the Prevailing AL.

[1]  H. Helson.  Adaptation-level as frame of reference for prediction of psychophysical data. , 1947, The American journal of psychology.

[2]  K. Spence.  The differential response in animals to stimuli varying within a single dimension. , 1937 .

[3]  D. R. Thomas,et al.  Stimulus generalization as a function of the frame of reference. , 1962, Journal of experimental psychology.

[4]  D. R. Thomas,et al.  On the form of stimulus generalization curves for visual intensity. , 1971, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[5]  Stimulus labeling, adaptation level, and the central tendency shift , 1974 .

[6]  I. Krechevsky,et al.  A study of the continuity of the problem-solving process. , 1938 .

[7]  Adaptation level as a factor in human wavelength generalization. , 1974, Journal of experimental psychology.

[8]  D. R. Thomas,et al.  Role of stimulus labeling in stimulus generalization. , 1966, Journal of experimental psychology.

[9]  J. S. Brown,et al.  Bidirectional gradients in the strength of a generalized voluntary response to stimuli on a visual-spatial dimension. , 1951, Journal of experimental psychology.

[10]  D. R. Thomas,et al.  STIMULUS GENERALIZATION OF A POSITIVE CONDITIONED REINFORCER. II. EFFECTS OF DISCRIMINATION TRAINING. , 1964, Journal of experimental psychology.

[11]  J. Hebert.  Context effects in the generalization of a successive discrimination in human subjects. , 1970, Canadian journal of psychology.

[12]  E. G. Heinemann,et al.  On the development of stimulus control. , 1973, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[13]  M. Svinicki,et al.  Adaptation level as a factor in human discrimination learning and stimulus generalization , 1973 .

[14]  H. I. Kalish.  The relationship between discriminability and generalization: a revaluation. , 1958, Journal of experimental psychology.

[15]  J. Hebert,et al.  Context and frequency effects in the generalization of a human voluntary response. , 1974, Journal of experimental psychology.

[16]  H. Terrace,et al.  OF THE EXPERIMENTAL ANALYSIS OF BEHAVIOR DISCRIMINATION LEARNING WITH AND WITHOUT " ERRORS " ' , 2005 .

[17]  Philip Br.  Effect of length of series upon generalization and central tendency in the discrimination of a series of stimuli. , 1952 .

[18]  S. White.  TRAINING AND TIMING IN THE GENERALIZATION OF A VOLUNTARY RESPONSE. , 1965, Journal of experimental psychology.

[19]  H. M. Hanson.  Effects of discrimination training on stimulus generalization. , 1959, Journal of experimental psychology.

[20]  Effect of test stimulus range on stimulus generalization in human subjects. , 1974, Journal of experimental psychology.

[21]  T. Doll,et al.  Effects of discrimination training on stimulus generalization for human subjects , 1967 .

[22]  David R. Thomas,et al.  Discrimination learning as a function of prior discrimination and nondifferential training: A replication , 1970 .

[23]  M. Zeiler.  THE RATIO THEORY OF INTERMEDIATE SIZE DISCRIMINATION. , 1963, Psychological review.

[24]  E Hearst,et al.  Stimulus generalization and amount of prior training on variable-interval reinforcement. , 1968, Journal of comparative and physiological psychology.

[25]  J. Frieman,et al.  Transfer of Training Following Errorless Discrimination Learning. , 1970 .

[26]  David R. Thomas,et al.  The effects of extinction and “central tendency” on stimulus generalization in pigeons , 1964 .

[27]  H. Terrace,et al.  Errorless transfer of a discrimination across two continua. , 1963, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[28]  David R. Thomas,et al.  Discrimination learning as a function of prior discrimination and nondifferential training , 1969 .

[29]  D. R. Thomas,et al.  Instructions and stimulus categorizing in a measure of stimulus generalization. , 1962, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[30]  N. Guttman.  The Pigeon and the Spectrum and other Perplexities , 1956 .

[31]  David R. Thomas,et al.  On the acquisition of dimensional stimulus control by the pigeon. , 1972 .

[32]  N. Guttman,et al.  Discriminability and stimulus generalization. , 1956, Journal of experimental psychology.

[33]  David R. Thomas,et al.  Mediated generalization via stimulus labeling: A replication and extension , 1968 .

[34]  H. James.  An application of Helson's theory of adaptation level to the problem of transposition. , 1953, Psychological review.

[35]  D. R. Thomas.  The effects of drive and discrimination training on stimulus generalization. , 1962, Journal of experimental psychology.

[36]  V. J. Tempone,et al.  A theory of stimulus equivalence , 1969 .

[37]  David R. Thomas,et al.  Adaptation level and the central tendency effect in stimulus generalization , 1974 .

[38]  David R. Thomas,et al.  Angularity preferences and stimulus orthogonality in pigeons , 1972 .

[39]  G. Razran.  Stimulus generalization of conditioned responses. , 1949, Psychological bulletin.

[40]  C. I. Hovland.  The Generalization of Conditioned Responses: II. The Sensory Generalization of Conditioned Responses with Varying Intensities of Tone , 1937 .

[41]  V. Pease,et al.  An application of adaptation-level theory to transposition responses in a conditional discrimination , 1968 .