Reading...
Play button
Play button
Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
28 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Transfer of learning: what are the two alternatives of transfer of learning?
|
specific learning (red = red then when presented with gree= ?)or general learning( red =red then green =green)
|
|
|
what is transfer of learning?
|
transfer of learning is when something that is learned is transfered to new situations
|
|
|
what is an example of trnasfer of learning?
|
the trials-unique procedudre:
Mumby(1990)used a different sample for each trial so that individual pairing b\w stimuli could not be made and so they form general concepts |
|
|
what can result from transfer of learning?
|
catagories and concepts
|
|
|
what are catagories?
|
catagories are groups of stimuli or events that belong together.
|
|
|
how do you know when you have formed a catagory?
|
when you can sucessfuly respond differently to differnt stimuli
|
|
|
how is a concept formed?
|
one is able to form a concept when they can sucessfuly form a catagory and then assign novel stimuli to the appro[riate catagory
|
|
|
what is a concept?
|
a concept is knowledge or previous lerning that allowes one to put stimuli or events into catagories
|
|
|
what is a operational concept?
|
an operational concept is when you can assign a novel stimuli or event to the appropriate pre-established catagory.
|
|
|
Theories of perceptual concepts:
what is the Feature theory? |
the feature theory is when members of a catagory have specified features in common.
|
|
|
what are dimensional catagories?
|
dimentional catagories are catagories that are based on one feature, for example the colour red. these types of catagories are simple and rare in the natural world
|
|
|
polymorphic rule
|
A number of features define a catagory, no one feature is nessisery or sufficient, but a stimulus must have a minimum number of features to be considered a member of a certain catagory
|
|
|
polymorphous catagories
|
are catagories formed using the polymorphic rules, these are also rar in nature
|
|
|
prootype model/theory
|
natural catagories are generalised from one prototype or standard example
|
|
|
is there evidence for the protype theory? and what are the problems with it?
|
yes there is evidence for it, it has been shown animals and humans can recognise prototypical examples of a catagory, the problem with this thory is that it is hard to distinguish it from a subset of the exemplar theory
|
|
|
exemplar model/thoery
|
says that we do not compare to real objects. we classifly by how similar the features of the novel object are to features of existing exemplar stimuli
|
|
|
what are natural catagories acording to the exemplar model?
|
natural catagories are just generalisations from S+ stimuli and discriminations from S- stimuli
|
|
|
herstein's (1979) pictures of trees classification expt.
|
-80 picture slides shown in operant chamber
-one tree, many trees, part of tree then classified as S+ and pecking was reinforced - if it did not contain any part of a tree then pecking was not reinforced and it was a S- - in discrimination tests were able to discern a tree and not a tree |
|
|
what was the evidence that they learnt the concept of tree?
|
they responded aproproately to pictures of tres they had never seen b4. there was no one factor that was the same across every slid for the pidgion to clssifly by ie green leaves, they can also catagorise other things such as ppl.
|
|
|
what isi Hernstein's theory of how they were able to catagorise?
|
the pidgions were responding to complex configurations of stimuli not single features , this allowed them to treat the pictures as real 3d objects not 2d pictures
|
|
|
what are the criticisms of hernstens theory?
|
pidgions can correctly catagorise objects they have/would never come into contact with in the real world such as letters of the alphanet.
|
|
|
can pidgions really treat 2d objects as 3d?
|
yes Delius (1992)showed they could match 2d pictures with 3d pictures of the sam object.
|
|
|
what is the evidence for humans using the exemplar model?
|
human converge on the same typical exemplars of a catagory, people will respond with a typical exemplar more often than an aytypical exemplar when asked to identify a member of a catagory, people tke longer to identify aytypical exemplars than typical exemplars when catagorising objects.
|
|
|
bonobo human catagorisation study
|
infant bonobos, human infants, toddlers
catagories:mammal, furniture, vehicle, familiarity trial-objects one catagory presented, LWT, 15s Test trial-novel familiar catagory, novel from another catagory |
|
|
what were the bonobo results of the human bonobo catagorisation study?
|
The bonobos showed that they could differentiate between each toy within the familiar category.The bonobos did not habituate to the familiar category in the time provided.During test trials, bonobos showed a significant preference for the object from the novel category – they demonstrated recognition of the ‘familiar’ category.
|
|
|
what were the human results of the human bonobo catagorisation study?
|
Both human infants and toddlers also showed differentiation of toys within the familiar category in a session, and habituation to individual toys within a trial. But, unlike the bonobos human participants habituated to the category.Human infants and toddlers also usually showed a preference for the object from the novel category during test trials – demonstrating recognition of the familiar category.
|
|
|
what was differnt about the human and bonobo results of the catagorisation study?
|
However, human toddlers always preferred the vehicle whether it was familiar or novel.
Toddler vehicle LWT generally included ‘sliding’ movements. No bonobos demonstrated understanding of the movement of the item the toy represented. Bonobo LWT resembled that of human infants – more ‘mouthing’ and less manipulation. |
|
|
what did the bonobo human catagorisation study show?
|
This study demonstrates the impact of learning history and phylogenetic differences on categorisation. The human toddlers also demonstrated recognition of the toy as a representation of a real-world object
|
