This research concerned training procedures (correction vs noncorrection), type of discrimination task (position vs brightness), and task difficulty in two 2 × 3 experiments using rats in single-unit mazes. An interaction was found between type of training procedure and task difficulty for the brightness task, with noncorrection Ss requiring relatively fewer trials to reach a criterion than correction Ss as the task became more difficult. A statistically insignificant interaction was found for the position task.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BabbH.Reply to Sutherland and Andelman. Psychonomic Science, 1968, 13, 283.
2.
BeschN. F.MorrisH.LevineS.A comparison between correction and noncorrection methods in drive discrimination. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1963, 65, 414–419.
3.
EstesW. K.Learning theory. Annual Review of Psychology, 1962, 13, 107–144.
FowlerH.SpeltP. F.WischnerG. J.Discrimination performance as affected by training procedure, problem difficulty, and shock for the correct response. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1967, 75, 432–436.
6.
HooperR.Variables controlling the overlearning reversal effect (ORE). Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1967, 73, 612–619.
7.
HullC. L.SpenceK. W.“Correction” vs. “noncorrection” method of trial-and-error learning in rats. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 1938, 25, 127–145.
8.
KehoeJ.Effects of prior and interpolated learning on retention in pigeons. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1963, 65, 537–545.
9.
McKelveyR. K.The relationship between training methods and reward variables in brightness discriminating learning. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1956, 49, 485–491.
10.
Munsell Color Co., Inc.Munsell Neutral Value Scale. Baltimore: Munsell, 1952.
11.
NorthA. J.Improvement in successive discrimination reversals. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1950, 43, 442–460. (a)
12.
NorthA. J.Performance during an extended series of discrimination reversals. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1950, 43, 461–470. (b)
13.
PaulC.Effect of overtraining and two non-correction training procedures upon a brightness discrimination reversal. Psychonomic Science, 1966, 5, 423–424.
14.
RestleF.Discrimination of cues in mazes: a resolution of the “place-vs.-response” question. Psychological Review, 1957, 64, 217–228.
15.
RobbinsJ.Probability learning in the correction T maze under noncontingent reinforcement schedules. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1969, 82, 115–120.
16.
SewardJ. P.An experimental analysis of maze discrimination. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 1943, 35, 17–27.
17.
SpenceK. W.Continuous versus non-continuous interpretations of discrimination learning. Psychological Review, 1940, 47, 271–288.
