Studying generalisation of associative learning requires analysis of response gradients measured over a continuous stimulus dimension. In human studies, there is often a high degree of individual variation in the gradients, making it difficult to draw conclusions about group-level trends with traditional statistical methods. Here, we demonstrate a novel method of analysing generalisation gradients based on hierarchical Bayesian curve-fitting. This method involves fitting an augmented (asymmetrical) Gaussian function to individual gradients and estimating its parameters in a hierarchical Bayesian framework. We show how the posteriors can be used to characterise group differences in generalisation and how classic generalisation phenomena such as peak shift and area shift can be measured and inferred. Estimation of descriptive parameters can provide a detailed and informative way of analysing human generalisation gradients.
BlancoF.MorisJ. (2017). Bayesian methods for addressing long-standing problems in associative learning: The case of PREE. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 71(9), 1844–1859.
2.
BloughD. S. (1973). Two-way generalization peak shift after two-key training in the pigeon. Animal Learning & Behavior, 1(3), 171–174.
3.
BloughD. S. (1975). Steady state data and a quantitative model of operant generalization and discrimination. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 1(1), 3–21.
4.
CummingG. (2014). The new statistics: Why and how. Psychological Science, 25(1), 7–29.
5.
DerenneA.GarnettA. M. (2016). Effects of successive and simultaneous stimulus presentations on absolute and relational stimulus control in adult humans. The Psychological Record, 66(1), 165–175.
6.
EtzA.GronauQ. F.DablanderF.EdelsbrunnerP. A.BaribaultB. (2018). How to become a Bayesian in eight easy steps: An annotated reading list. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 25(1), 219–234.
7.
GallagharN. J.ProvostS.BizoL. A. (2019). A jump to the left and a step to the right: A test of two accounts of peak shift. The Psychological Record, 70, 11–20.
8.
GelmanA.CarlinJ. B.SternH. S.DunsonD. B.VehtariA.RubinD. B. (2013). Bayesian data analysis. Chapman & Hall/CRC Press.
9.
GhirlandaS. (2002). Intensity generalization: Physiology and modelling of a neglected topic. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 214(3), 389–404.
10.
GhirlandaS.EnquistM. (1998). Artificial neural networks as models of stimulus control. Animal Behaviour, 56(6), 1383–1389.
11.
GhirlandaS.EnquistM. (2003). A century of generalization. Animal Behaviour, 66(1), 15–36.
12.
GuttmanN.KalishH. I. (1956). Discriminability and stimulus generalization. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 51(1), 79–88.
13.
HansonH. M. (1959). Effects of discrimination training on stimulus generalization. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58(5), 321–334.
14.
HonigW. K.UrcuioliP. J. (1981). The legacy of Guttman and Kalish (1956): 25 years of research on stimulus generalization. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 36(3), 405–445.
15.
JonesF.WillsA.McLarenI. (1998). Perceptual categorization: Connectionist modelling and decision rules. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Section B, 51(1), 33–58.
16.
KruschkeJ. K. (2015). Doing Bayesian data analysis: A tutorial with R, JAGS, and Stan (2nd ed.). Academic Press.
17.
KruschkeJ. K. (2018). Rejecting or accepting parameter values in Bayesian estimation. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 1(2), 270–280.
18.
KruschkeJ. K.LiddellT. M. (2018). The Bayesian new statistics: Hypothesis testing, estimation, meta-analysis, and power analysis from a Bayesian perspective. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 25(1), 178–206.
19.
LeeJ. C.HayesB. K.LovibondP. F. (2018). Peak shift and rules in human generalization. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 44(12), 1955–1970.
20.
LeeJ. C.LiveseyE. J. (2018). Rule-based generalization and peak shift in the presence of simple relational rules. PLOS ONE, 13(9), e0203805.
21.
LeeJ. C.LovibondP. F.HayesB. K.NavarroD. J. (2019). Negative evidence and inductive reasoning in generalization of associative learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 148(2), 289–303.
22.
LeeM. D.WagenmakersE.-J. (2014). Bayesian cognitive modeling: A practical course. Cambridge University Press.
23.
LeeM. D.WebbM. R. (2005). Modeling individual differences in cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12(4), 605–621.
24.
LissekS. (2012). Toward an account of clinical anxiety predicated on basic, neurally mapped mechanisms of Pavlovian fear-learning: The case for conditioned overgeneralization. Depression and Anxiety, 29(4), 257–263.
25.
LiveseyE. J.McLarenI. P. (2009). Discrimination and generalization along a simple dimension: Peak shift and rule-governed responding. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 35(4), 554–565.
26.
LiveseyE. J.McLarenI. P. (2019). Revisiting peak shift on an artificial dimension: Effects of stimulus variability on generalisation. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 72(2), 132–150.
27.
LovibondP. F.LeeJ. C.HayesB. K. (2020). Stimulus discriminability and induction as independent components of generalization. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 46(6), 1106–1120.
28.
LynnS. K.CnaaniJ.PapajD. R. (2005). Peak shift discrimination learning as a mechanism of signal evolution. Evolution, 59(6), 1300–1305.
29.
MakowskiD.Ben-ShacharM. S.LüdeckeD. (2019). bayestestR: Describing effects and their uncertainty, existence and significance within the Bayesian framework. Journal of Open Source Software, 4(40), 1541. https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01541
30.
McElreathR. (2018). Statistical rethinking: A Bayesian course with examples in R and Stan. Chapman & Hall/CRC Press.
31.
McLarenI. P.MackintoshN. (2002). Associative learning and elemental representation: II. Generalization and discrimination. Animal Learning & Behavior, 30(3), 177–200.
32.
NatalS. D.McLarenI.LiveseyE. J. (2013). Generalization of feature-and rule-based learning in the categorization of dimensional stimuli: Evidence for dual processes under cognitive control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 39(2), 140–151.
33.
NealR. M. (1994). An improved acceptance procedure for the hybrid Monte Carlo algorithm. Journal of Computational Physics, 111(1), 194–203.
34.
PurtleR. B. (1973). Peak shift: A review. Psychological Bulletin, 80(5), 408–421.
35.
RatcliffeL.BoagP.ShackletonS.WeismanR.WearyD. (1994). Sexual preferences of female zebra finches: Imprinting on beak colour. Behaviour, 128(1–2), 15–24.
36.
R Core Team. (2019). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/
37.
RillingM. (1977). Stimulus control and inhibitory processes. In HonigW. K.StaddonJ. E. R. (Eds.), Handbook of operant behavior (pp. 432–480). Prentice Hall.
38.
ShepardR. N. (1957). Stimulus and response generalization: A stochastic model relating generalization to distance in psychological space. Psychometrika, 22(4), 325–345.
39.
ShepardR. N. (1987). Toward a universal law of generalization for psychological science. Science, 237(4820), 1317–1323.
40.
SpenceK. W. (1937). The differential response in animals to stimuli varying within a single dimension. Psychological Review, 44(5), 430–444.
41.
Stan Development Team. (2018). RStan: The R interface to Stan. http://mc-stan.org/
42.
StegmannY.SchieleM.SchümannD.LonsdorfT.ZwanzgerP.RomanosM.. . .PauliP. (2019). Individual differences in human fear generalization—Pattern identification and implications for anxiety disorders. Translational Psychiatry, 9(1), 1–11.
43.
StruyfD.IbericoC.VervlietB. (2014). Increasing predictive estimations without further learning: The peak-shift effect. Experimental Psychology, 61(2), 134–141.
44.
SutherlandN. S.MackintoshN. J. (1971). Mechanisms of animal discrimination learning. Academic Press.
45.
SwitalskiR. W.LyonsJ.ThomasD. R. (1966). Effects of interdimensional training on stimulus generalization. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 72(5), 661–666.
46.
ten CateC.VerzijdenM. N.EtmanE. (2006). Sexual imprinting can induce sexual preferences for exaggerated parental traits. Current Biology, 16(11), 1128–1132.
47.
ThomasD. R.MoodK.MorrisonS.WiertelakE. (1991). Peak shift revisited: A test of alternative interpretations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 17(2), 130–140.
48.
VanbrabantK.BoddezY.VerduynP.MestdaghM.HermansD.RaesF. (2015). A new approach for modeling generalization gradients: A case for hierarchical models. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, e652.
49.
WagenmakersE.-J.LodewyckxT.KuriyalH.GrasmanR. (2010). Bayesian hypothesis testing for psychologists: A tutorial on the savage–dickey method. Cognitive Psychology, 60(3), 158–189.
50.
WagnerA. R. (1969). Incidental stimuli and discrimination learning. In GilbertR.SutherlandN. S. (Eds.), Animal discrimination learning (pp. 83–111). Academic Press.
51.
WearyD.GuilfordT.WeismanR. (1993). A product of discriminative learning may lead to female preferences for elaborate males. Evolution, 47(1), 333–336.
52.
WillsA.McLarenI. (1997). Generalization in human category learning: A connectionist account of differences in gradient after discriminative and non discriminative training. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Section A, 50(3), 607–630.
53.
WillsS.MackintoshN. (1998). Peak shift on an artificial dimension. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Section B, 51(1), 1–32.
54.
WisniewskiM. G. (2017). Predicting favorable and unfavorable consequences of perceptual learning: Worsening and the peak shift. Experimental Brain Research, 235(4), 1233–1245.
55.
WongA. H.LovibondP. F. (2017). Rule-based generalisation in single-cue and differential fear conditioning in humans. Biological Psychology, 129, 111–120.
56.
ZamanJ.CeulemansE.HermansD.BeckersT. (2019). Direct and indirect effects of perception on generalization gradients. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 114, 44–50.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
