Conditioned discriminative eyelid response frequency and topography for 9 Ss was compared before, immediately after and 2 to 7 days following 2 days of monotonous confinement. Monotonous confinement did not enhance learning over control readings; however, it may have a selective effect on individual differences and conditioning.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ArnhoffF. N.LeonH. V.BrownfieldC. A.Sensory deprivation: Its effects on human learning. Science, 1962, 138, 899–900.
2.
GendreauP. E.FreedmanN.WildeG. J. S.ScottG. D.Stimulation seeking after seven days of perceptual deprivation. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1968, 26, 547–550.
3.
NormanD. A.A comparison of data obtained with different false alarm rates. Psychological Review, 1964, 71, 243–246.
4.
ScottT. H.BextonW. H.HeronW.DoaneB. K.Cognitive effects of perceptual isolation. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 1959, 13, 200–209.
SuboskiM. D.KhoslaS.UCS intensity and instructional set in classical eyelid conditioning: Discrimination conditioning and signal detection analysis. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 1969, 23, 389–401.
7.
SuedfeldP.Changes in intellectual performance and in susceptibility to influence. In ZubekJ. P. (Ed), Sensory deprivation: Fifteen years of research. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1969. Pp. 126–166.
8.
VernonH. J.HoffmanJ.Effect of sensory deprivation on learning rate in human beings. Science, 1956, 123, 1074–1075.
9.
VernonJ.McGillJ. E.The effect of sensory deprivation upon rote learning. American Journal of Psychology, 1957, 70, 637–639.
