Thomas D R, Lusky M, Morrison S
University of Colorado, Boulder.
Percept Psychophys. 1992 Jun;51(6):529-40. doi: 10.3758/bf03211650.
Six experiments were carried out to compare go/no-go and choice paradigms for studying the effects of intradimensional discrimination training on subsequent measures of stimulus generalization in human subjects. Specifically, the purpose was to compare the two paradigms as means of investigating generalization gradient forms and frame of reference effects. In Experiment 1, the stimulus dimension was visual intensity (brightness); in Experiment 2, it was line orientation (line-angle stimuli). After learning to respond (or to respond "right") to stimulus value (SV) 4 and not to respond (or to respond "left") to SV2 (in Experiment 1) or SV1 (in Experiment 2), the subjects were tested for generalization (recognition) with an asymmetrical set of values ranging from SV1 to SV11. Go/no-go training produced peaked gradients, whereas choice training produced sigmoid gradients. The asymmetrical testing resulted in a gradual shift of the peak of responding (go/no-go group) or in the point of subjective indifference (PSI; choice group) toward the central value of the test series; thus, both paradigms revealed a frame of reference effect. The results were comparable for the quantitative (intensity) and the qualitative (line-angle) stimulus dimensions. Experiment 3 compared the go/no-go procedure with a yes/no procedure in which subjects responded "right" to SV4 and "left" to all other intensities and found no differences between these procedures. Thus the difference in gradient forms in go/no as opposed to (traditional) choice paradigms depends on whether one or two target stimuli are used in training. In Experiment 4, in which visual intensity was used, the shift in the PSI following choice training varied positively with the range of asymmetrical test stimuli employed. In Experiment 5, also with visual intensity, the magnitude of the peak shift following go/no-go training varied as a function of overrepresenting a high or a low stimulus value during generalization testing. Experiment 6, with line angles, showed that the PSI following choice training varies in a similar way. The frame of reference effects obtained in these experiments are consistent with an adaptation-level model.
进行了六项实验,以比较采用“是/否”和选择范式来研究维度内辨别训练对人类受试者后续刺激泛化测量的影响。具体而言,目的是比较这两种范式,作为研究泛化梯度形式和参照系效应的手段。在实验1中,刺激维度是视觉强度(亮度);在实验2中,是线条方向(线角刺激)。在学会对刺激值(SV)4做出反应(或回答“正确”),而不对SV2(实验1)或SV1(实验2)做出反应(或回答“错误”)之后,用一组从SV1到SV11的不对称值对受试者进行泛化(识别)测试。“是/否”训练产生了峰值梯度,而选择训练产生了S形梯度。不对称测试导致反应峰值(“是/否”组)或主观无差异点(PSI;选择组)逐渐向测试系列的中心值偏移;因此,两种范式都显示出参照系效应。对于定量(强度)和定性(线角)刺激维度,结果是可比的。实验3将“是/否”程序与“是/否”程序进行了比较,在“是/否”程序中,受试者对SV4回答“正确”,对所有其他强度回答“错误”,结果发现这两种程序之间没有差异。因此,与(传统)选择范式相比,“是/否”范式中梯度形式的差异取决于训练中使用一个还是两个目标刺激。在使用视觉强度的实验4中,选择训练后PSI的偏移与所采用的不对称测试刺激的范围呈正相关。在同样使用视觉强度的实验5中,“是/否”训练后峰值偏移的大小随泛化测试期间高或低刺激值的过度呈现而变化。在实验6中,使用线角,结果表明选择训练后的PSI以类似方式变化。在这些实验中获得的参照系效应与适应水平模型一致。