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;
57 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Vollmer, Iwata
Establishing Operations and Reinforcer Effects Procedure |
residential setting
5 profoundly retarded male participants ages 25, 27, 28, 29, 36 2 responses: -block placement task -switch closure task 3 consequences: food, music, social interaction 3 conditions: baseline, deprivation, satiation |
|
|
Vollmer, Iwata
Establishing Operations and Reinforcer Effects Results |
No consequences during baseline.
Deprivation acted as a an establishing operation which increased probability of responses. Satiation acted as an establishing operation which decreased the probability of responses. *Response rates during reinforcement conditions vary as a function of relative deprivation versus satiation. |
|
|
Hammond
The Effect of Contingency Upon The Appetitive Conditioning of Free Operant Behavior Procedure experiment I |
10 male albino rats
23 hour water deprivation 1 hour magazine training conditions varied from very high positive contingency, high positive, mod high pos, zero,mod high pos,to zero. (response- lever press) |
|
|
Hammond
The Effect of Contingency Upon The Appetitive Conditioning of Free Operant Behavior Results experiment I |
Decline in responding upon intro to zero contingency (greater decline 2nd zero contingency shift)
Greater responding with positive contingency |
|
|
Hammond
The Effect of Contingency Upon The Appetitive Conditioning of Free Operant Behavior Procedure experiment II |
47 male albino rats (grouped into 5)
conditions varied from very high positive contingency, mod high, zero(1), vhp, mhp, strongly neg(2), vhp, hp, zero(3),vhp, hp, hp(4), and vhp, hp, intermediate pos(group5). |
|
|
Hammond
The Effect of Contingency Upon The Appetitive Conditioning of Free Operant Behavior Results experiment II |
Negative contingency more effective at supressing behavior than zero contingency.
|
|
|
Nonassociative learning
|
reflexive, S-R
change in behavior by the presentation of a stimulus |
|
|
Respondent conditioning
|
classical/Pavlonian
The conditioning of reflexive behavior by S-S contingencies (or pairings) S-R link not influenced by consequences of responses |
|
|
Operant conditioning
|
R-S, Instrumental conditioning
Behavior emitted by an organism and reinforced by environmental events following responding. Consequences of behavior influence future response rate. Reinforcement and Punishment are basic operant processes. |
|
|
How are nonassociative learning, respondent conditioning, and operant conditioning similar and different?
|
Non-A learning and R-
Conditioning both concern reflexive behavior, whereas operant conditioning behaviors are learned from past history. NAL does not require an association between two stimuli, whereas RC includes pairing of a US and a CS. NA= S-R RC= S+S-R In both RC and OC, responses are influenced by a stimuli, whether before or after the behavior. |
|
|
Habituation processes
|
desensitization
A decrease in the effect of a stimulus on the response following repeated presentations. ex: repeated presentation of a novel tone w/no consequence elecits reduced orienting responses. ex: rooting reponse to cheek stimulation in neonates decreases with repeated presentations. |
|
|
Habituation functional relations
|
Habituation occurs more slowly the more intense the stimuli.
Repeated occurrences of habituation result in smaller effects. After habituation occurs, re-presentation of stimulus elicits stronger response. Repeated presentations of a stimulus results in reduced response rates. |
|
|
Sensitization processes
|
Increase in eliciting effect of a stimulus following repeated presentations.
ex: watching a horror movie and then hearing a novel noise outside (increased startle response) ex: Delivery of foot shock and novel tone (increased startle response) |
|
|
Sensitization functional relations
|
The higher the intensity of the stimulus, the stronger the sensitization effects.
The longer the time between stimuli, the stronger the sensitization effect. |
|
|
Different types of respondent conditioning
|
respondent extinction, respondent-stimulus
generalization, sensory preconditioning, respondent stimulus discrimination, Higher-order respondent conditioning, Simultaneous conditioning, Trace Conditioning, Delay Conditioning, Backward Conditioning, Temporal Conditioning, Blocking, Overshadowing |
|
|
Positive Reinforcement
(definition and example) |
Any stimulus whose presentation following a response increases the probability of that response.
ex: pigeon pecks a key ro recieve grain (pecking increases) ex: child presses a button to get an m&m (button presses increase) |
|
|
Negative Reinforcement
(definition and example) |
Any stimulus whose removal following a response increases the probability of that response.
ex: pigeon pecks a key that reduces illumination (pecking increases) ex: child presses button to terminate work (button presses increase) |
|
|
Positive Punishment
(definition and example) |
Any stimulus whose presentation after a response decreases the probability of that response.
ex: pigeon pecks key and illumination increases (key pecks decrease) ex: child presses button and gets more work (button presses decrease) |
|
|
Negative Punishment
(definition and example) |
Any stimulus who removal following a reponse decreases the probability of that response.
ex: pigeon pecks a key and food is removed (pecking is decreased) ex: child presses a button and m&m is taken away (button presses decrease) |
|
|
Shaping
definition and examples |
Reinforcing successive approximations of a target behavior.
DRL, DRH, T-maze performance, Place preference, backward chaining, forward chaining, Three-position response sequence |
|
|
2 behavioral processes of shaping
|
differential reinforcement
extinction |
|
|
differential reinforcement
|
contingency in which only some response topographies are reinforced and others are not.
|
|
|
extinction
|
absence of reinforcement for some response topographies
absence of contingency |
|
|
How does differential reinforcement increase or decrease behavior?
|
DR increases target behavior through a contingency for that behavior ro be emitted in order to recieve reinforcement. Only response topography of target behavior is reinforced.
Response topographies that are not reinforced decrease (are extinguished). DRL, DRO, DRI, DRH |
|
|
How does extinction increase or decrease behavior?
|
extinction decreases behavior by removing the contingency (and prior reinforcement).
Whatever was maintaining the behavior is no longer being reinforced. |
|
|
Contingency
(definition and how it relates to operant conditioning) |
a consequence that is based by the meeting of a response requirement.
All operant behavior is based on the concept of contingency. |
|
|
Contiguity
(definition and how it relates to respondent conditioning) |
next to or near in time or sequence.
Time relationship between CS and US. Contiguity is critical in respondent conditioning. CS and US must be close enough in time to form and association and far enough away in time to be discriminated from one another. |
|
|
Examples of basic behavioral processes that can be synthesized into a more complex behavioral process.
|
Rat lever response:
Rat presses one lever and a shock is avoided so the pressing lever response is increased. Rat presses another lever and is shocked. The lever pressing response is decreased. This process involves response avoidance and positive punishment. |
|
|
Examples of basic behavioral processes that can be synthesized into a more complex behavioral process.
|
Three-position response sequence.
Involved differential reinforcement, extinction, and conditioned reinforcement to establish a response sequence. |
|
|
Examples of basic behavioral processes that can be synthesized into a more complex behavioral process.
|
Individual processes:
extinction, habituation, US-CS conditioning, neg reinforcement, pos punishment, etc. Synthetic processes: Differential reinforcement (extinction, reinforcement) Satiation (positive reinforcement, abolishing operation) |
|
|
Response class
|
behaviors (or different topographies) that occasion a similar type of reinforcement (can be pos or neg)
a group of responses with the same function (each response group produces the same effect on the environment) |
|
|
How response classes relate to positive and negative reinforcers.
|
Positive reinforcment: there are many ways to open a bag of chips.
Negative reinforcement: there are many ways to kill a bug. |
|
|
Free operant avoidance
|
each response postpones an aversive stimulus
|
|
|
RS/SS examples
|
RS- response-shock interval
ex: (RS at 5s interval) If the rat responds it avoids a shock for 5s. SS- Shock-Shock Interval ex: (ex SS interval of 20s) If a rat does not respond it gets shocked every 20s) ex: RS (5s) SS(15s) If the rat responds it postpones the shock for 10s. If it does not respond it gets shocked every 15s. The response is likely to be lower in this condition. |
|
|
RS/SS interval definitions
|
Response shock interval is the amount of time that a shock can be avoided given a response.
Shock-shock interval is the amount of time between shocks given no response |
|
|
RS/SS functional relations
|
When the RS interval is greater than the SS interval the condition enters into a negative reinforcement contingency (rat presses lever to avoid shock)
The longer the RS interval, the higher the response probability. The longer the SS interval the lower the response probability. |
|
|
IRT
|
Inter-response Time
the time between 2 consecutive responses |
|
|
How do IRTs relate to responding under the control of positive or negative reinforcement?
|
Negative reinforcement: the longer the IRT required for reinforcement, the less probability of a response
The smaller the IRT required for reinforcement, the higher the responding. (is it the same for both pos and neg reinforcement?) |
|
|
"The Premack Principle"
(relativity theory of reinforcement) |
the relativity of reinforcers and punishers.
ex: access to higher probability operants can be used as reinforcers to increase the occurrence of lower probability operants. making the opportunity to engage in a high frequency behavior contingent upon a lower frequency behavior will function as a reinforcement for the low-frequency behavior |
|
|
Synthesis of habituation and sensitization
|
If a strong stimulus occurs repeatedly at a low rate, sensitization will occur before habituation.
Reduction in a stimulus strength reduced sensitization effects (reciprocal: more=greater) Increased time between presentations increases sensitization effects )reciprocal: shorter=lesser) |
|
|
Respondent extinction
|
CS-R is no longer paired with the US.
Need intermittent pairings of CS+US, otherwise respondent extinction occurs. |
|
|
Variables that influence respondent extinction
|
strength of US: the stronger the US the less often you have to pair US+CS
duration of US: longer the duration of the US the less often pairing needs to occur time since last presentation of US Number of time CS extinction has taken place: the more times extinguished the more often you must have CS+US pairings |
|
|
Respondent stimulus generalization
|
the tendency of R to occur to a CS that varies slightly in some physical dimension (duration, frequency, intensity)
Organism may have same or similar response to a slightly different CS. |
|
|
Respondent Stimulus Discrimination
|
Organism learns to respond to CS that is paired with US, but not to stimuli that do not recieve pairings with US.
|
|
|
Higher-order respondent conditioning
|
pairing of a CS with a different CS+US pairing (chained)
CS2 produces weaker response than CS1 |
|
|
Sensory Preconditioning
|
Pairing of a CS with a different CS+US pairing (unchained)
CS2 produces weaker response than CS1 |
|
|
Simultaneous Conditioning
|
CS precedes US by less than 5s
rapid conditioning of CS learning occurs quickly |
|
|
Trace Conditioning
|
CS is presented with a relatively long delay before the onset of the US
Longer the delay, the less effective the conditioning |
|
|
Delay Conditioning
|
CS is presented continuously before the onset of US
conditioning strength decreases with increased delays between CS and US |
|
|
Backward Conditioning
|
US is presented before CS
Least effective type of respondent conditioning extinguishes quickly can not come under the control of higher order conditioning |
|
|
Temporal Conditioning
|
US presented at constant temporal intervals
passage of time may become discriminative- passage of time may become a CS |
|
|
Which type of conditioning paradigm results in the most rapid extinction?
|
backward
|
|
|
Which type of conditioning paradigm results in the greatest resistance to extinction?
|
simultaneous
|
|
|
Does stimulus presentation occur in temporal conditioning?
|
yes
|
|
|
Which type of conditioning paradigm is least likely to come under the control of higher-order conditioning?
|
backward
|
|
|
Blocking
|
Previous conditioning with CS impairs occurring with a novel CS.
training CS1+S2+US- R CS1-response S2- no response S2 doesn't predict anything even though it's added to the chain |
|
|
Overshadowing
|
Simultaneous pairing of CSs results in only one stimulus becoming conditioned.
No way to predict which stimulus will become conditioned. |
