对事件持续时间记忆理论的支持必须区分测试试验的模糊性和实际的记忆丧失。
Support for a theory of memory for event duration must distinguish between test-trial ambiguity and actual memory loss.
作者信息
Zentall T R
机构信息
Department of Psychology, University of Kentucky, Lexington 40506, USA.
出版信息
J Exp Anal Behav. 1999 Nov;72(3):467-72. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1999.72-467.
Staddon and Higa's (1999) trace-strength theory of timing and memory for event duration can account for pigeons' bias to "choose short" when retention intervals are introduced and to "choose long" when, following training with a fixed retention interval, retention intervals are shortened. However, it does not account for the failure of pigeons to choose short when the intertrial interval is distinct from the retention interval. That finding suggests that stimulus generalization (or ambiguity) between the intertrial interval and the retention interval may result in an effect that has been attributed to memory loss. Such artifacts must be eliminated before a theory of memory for event duration can be adequately tested.
斯塔登和希加（1999年）提出的关于事件持续时间的计时与记忆的痕迹强度理论，能够解释鸽子在引入保持间隔时“选择短的”偏向，以及在经过固定保持间隔训练后保持间隔缩短时“选择长的”偏向。然而，该理论无法解释当试验间隔与保持间隔不同时鸽子不选择短的情况。这一发现表明，试验间隔与保持间隔之间的刺激泛化（或模糊性）可能会导致一种被归因于记忆丧失的效应。在能够充分检验事件持续时间记忆理论之前，必须消除此类人为因素的影响。
Zotero 插件