University of Otago, Department ofPsychology, P.O. Box 56, Dunedin, New Zealand.
J Exp Anal Behav. 2010 Mar;93(2):185-201. doi: 10.1901/jeab.2010.93-185.
The present experiment examined the effects of varying stimulus disparity and relative punisher frequencies on signal detection by humans. Participants were placed into one of two groups. Group 3 participants were presented with 1:3 and 3:1 punisher frequency ratios, while Group 11 participants were presented with 1:11 and 11:1 punisher frequency ratios. For both groups, stimulus disparity was varied across three levels (low, medium, high) for each punisher ratio. In all conditions, correct responses were intermittently reinforced (1:1 reinforcer frequency ratio). Participants were mostly biased away from the more punished alternative, with more extreme response biases found for Group 11 participants compared to Group 3. For both groups, estimates of discriminability increased systematically across the three disparity levels and were unaffected by the punisher ratios. Likewise, estimates of response bias and sensitivity to the punisher ratios were unaffected by changes in discriminability, supporting the assumption of parameter invariance in the Davison and Tustin (1978) model of signal detection. Overall, the present experiment found no relation between stimulus control and punisher control, and provided further evidence for similar but opposite effects of punishers to reinforcers in signal-detection procedures.
本实验考察了刺激差异和相对惩罚器频率变化对人类信号检测的影响。参与者被分为两组。第三组的参与者接受了 1:3 和 3:1 的惩罚器频率比,而第十一组的参与者接受了 1:11 和 11:1 的惩罚器频率比。对于两组参与者,在每个惩罚器比值下,刺激差异分为三个水平(低、中、高)。在所有条件下,正确反应都以间歇方式得到强化(1:1 强化器频率比)。与第三组相比,第十一组参与者更多地偏向于受到更多惩罚的选择,表现出更极端的反应偏差。对于两组参与者,辨别力的估计值都随着差异程度的增加而系统地增加,不受惩罚器比值的影响。同样,反应偏差和对惩罚器比值的敏感性的估计值不受辨别力变化的影响,支持了 Davison 和 Tustin(1978)信号检测模型中参数不变的假设。总的来说,本实验发现刺激控制和惩罚控制之间没有关系,并为惩罚器在信号检测过程中与强化物具有相似但相反的作用提供了进一步的证据。