Suppr超能文献

个体差异可以解释鸽子在使用概率强化进行传递性推理形成过程中的失败。

Individual differences could explain the failure in transitive inference formation in pigeons using probabilistic reinforcement.

作者信息

Camarena Héctor Octavio, García-Leal Oscar, Saldaña-Hernández Zayra, Barrón Erick

机构信息

Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Guadalajara, Guadalajara, Mexico.

Basic Psychology Department, University of Guadalajara, Guadalajara, Mexico.

出版信息

Front Psychol. 2023 Jan 17;13:1033583. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1033583. eCollection 2022.

Abstract

In propositional logic, it is stated that "for if A is predicated for every B, and B for every C, A must necessarily be predicated of every C". Following a similar logical process, it can be said that If A > B and B > C, then A > C, this is called transitive inference (TI). Piaget developed a verbal task to evaluate TI in children. Subsequent studies adapted this task for animals using a conditioned discrimination between five-terms sequence of stimuli A + B-, B + C-, C + D-, and D + E-. If subjects prefer B over D during test, it is assumed that TI has occurred. In this experiment, we analyzed the effects of task complexity on TI by using a five-terms sequence of stimuli associated with probabilistic outcomes during training, in pigeons. Thus, both stimuli are reinforced in each pair but with different probability, 0.8 for + stimulus and 0.2 for the-stimulus. We found that performance during C + D- pair is impaired and preference in the test pair BD is affected. However, this impairment is dependent on individual differences in performance in C + D- pair. We compare our findings with previous research and conclude that Pavlovian mechanisms, as well as ordering of stimuli, can account for our findings.

摘要

在命题逻辑中,有这样的表述:“如果A对所有B成立,且B对所有C成立,那么A必然对所有C成立”。遵循类似的逻辑过程,可以说如果A > B且B > C,那么A > C,这被称为传递性推理(TI)。皮亚杰设计了一项语言任务来评估儿童的传递性推理能力。后续研究将该任务改编用于动物,采用了对刺激A + B-、B + C-、C + D-和D + E-的五项序列进行条件辨别。如果在测试过程中,实验对象对B的偏好超过D,那么就认为发生了传递性推理。在本实验中,我们通过在训练过程中使用与概率性结果相关的刺激的五项序列,来分析任务复杂性对鸽子传递性推理的影响。因此,在每一对刺激中,两种刺激都会得到强化,但概率不同,正向刺激的概率为0.8,负向刺激的概率为0.2。我们发现,在C + D-这一对刺激中的表现受到损害,并且测试对BD中的偏好也受到影响。然而,这种损害取决于在C + D-这一对刺激中表现的个体差异。我们将我们的研究结果与之前的研究进行比较,并得出结论,巴甫洛夫机制以及刺激的排序可以解释我们的研究结果。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/5306/9888551/1de556f1962b/fpsyg-13-1033583-g001.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验