Unit1 B new248

Views:
 
Category: Entertainment
     
 

Presentation Description

No description available.

Comments

Presentation Transcript

Slide1: 

Operant Conditioning Pavlovian learning how stimuli provide information about other stimuli Operant learning how your behavior leads to good and bad results Natural selection  effective organisms survive  other ones die out  results in complex well adapted organisms Behavioral selection  behavior leading to good outcomes is strengthened  other behavior dies out  results in complex behavior that is suitable for the environment

Slide2: 

The Law of Effect (voluntary responses, not reflexes) Responses followed by good things are strengthened Responses followed by bad things are weakened R Re responses (reward or reinforcer) Good Consequence Bad Consequence Behavior produces consequences Behavior eliminates consequences Positive reinforcement Omission Punishment Negative Reinforcement

Slide3: 

The Law of Effect (voluntary responses, not reflexes) Responses followed by good things are strengthened Responses followed by bad things are weakened R Re responses (reward or reinforcer) Good Consequence Bad Consequence Behavior produces consequences Behavior eliminates consequences Positive reinforcement Omission Punishment Negative Reinforcement

Slide4: 

The Law of Effect (voluntary responses, not reflexes) Responses followed by good things are strengthened Responses followed by bad things are weakened R Re responses (reward or reinforcer) Good Consequence Bad Consequence Behavior produces consequences Behavior eliminates consequences Positive reinforcement Omission Punishment Negative Reinforcement Decrease probability of response

Slide5: 

bar press rate acquisition time extinction rat out of box spontaneous recovery stop reinforcement Operant conditioning may also be subject to inhibition.

Slide6: 

Contingency vs. Contiguity Does the response have to predict the consequence? Hammond (1980) Supports Contingency

Slide7: 

Conditioned Reinforcement Skinner (1938) Phase 1 “click” . . . . . food conditioned primary reinforcer reinforcer Phase 2 Rats learn to press a bar to hear the “click” Other examples praise money grades Conditioned reinforcers only develop when they predict primary reinforcer (more evidence for contingency)

Slide8: 

Token Reinforcers First train animals that tokens can be exchanged for food (e.g., vending machine) Then see if animals will learn other responses to get tokens Chimpanzees tokens work as well as “real” reinforcers fight over the tokens

Slide9: 

panel Learned Helplessness (Seligman) Phase I - Learning to Escape Control Dogs Yoked Dogs Shock A long lasting shock is given to both groups every once in a while Control dogs can turn shock off by pushing a panel Yoked dogs’ shock turns off too, when control dog pushes panel Yoked dogs can do nothing themselves to escape shock

Slide10: 

Phase 2 - Avoidance Learning shock delivered to one side of box if dog jumps hurdle to other side there is no shock Control dogs learn to avoid shock Yoked dogs don’t Yoked dogs have learned that they can’t stop shock They have learned to be helpless hurdle

Slide11: 

“Curing” learned helplessness Curing learned helplessness requires the animal to experience success Depression is like learned helplessness passive lose weight have trouble learning new tasks Drag the dog over the hurdle a few times Eventually learns to avoid shock

Slide12: 

Preventing Learned Helplessness If dogs are first exposed to shock that they can turn off and then exposed to uncontrollable shock, they don’t learn to be helpless. Early Experience!

Slide13: 

Methods for Studying Memory STUDY TEST retention interval Recall Tests Free recall Serial recall Cued recall

Slide14: 

steel thread tights universe cob batteries eye cow pear clarinet nail pitch airplane mittens bunny sprinkler spaghetti saucer canary microphone

Slide15: 

Recognition DRUM CORD Study KITE PARROT yes-no Test CLASS KITE CORD CORN Forced Choice KITE BIRD HIT MISS FALSE ALARM CORRECT REJECTION OLD ITEM NEW RESPONSE “YES” “NO”

Slide16: 

Experiments with no study phase Autobiographical Memory Recall all of your elementary school teachers Where were you when “Challenger” space shuttle blew up? How do you know if recall is accurate? Semantic Memory Tests of general knowledge Easy questions “Is an oak a tree?” measure response time Hard questions Which is bigger, an eagle or a raccoon?

Slide17: 

Savings in Relearning Learn Relearn something the same thing How many If it takes trials? few trials, you have memory % savings = trials for trials for original learning relearning trials for original learning Example learning ancient Greek passages STUDY - 1-1/2 year old has Greek passages read to him TEST - Age 8

Slide18: 

TEST 10 new passages 30 trials 10 old passages 21 trials % savings = = 30% Conclude: There is some memory for old passages 30-21 30

Slide19: 

“Classic” or Standard Theory of Memory Selectivity of Encoding Only some information is stored permanently A B C D E F G H I J K L C D E ] F G H E

Slide20: 

Rejects conveyor not good enough Hi-grade

Slide21: 

Rejects conveyor not good enough Hi-grade Information from sense organs Sensory Memory Attention System Short-Term Store Forgotten Long Term Store

Slide22: 

Classic Theory Sensory Memories Iconic Store Echoic Store Attention Filter Short-Term Store Long-Term Store large capacity rapid turnover “raw” information small capacity symbolic information almost unlimited capacity eyes ears

Slide23: 

Short-Term Store some metaphors 1. Box with Slots (limited capacity) 2. A work bench where thinking takes place parrot pizza jet parrot jet

Slide24: 

3. STS is the activated part of long-term store 4. STS is your consciousness jet parrot pizza heli- copter ham- burger bird fly plane food eats

Slide26: 

What happens to items in STS? LTS transferred to LTS if rehearsed a lot or if important

Slide27: 

What do symbols in STS stand for? (Coding) Classic Theory words & letters are coded by sound (acoustic) OR internal articulation not by meaning Conrad (1964) serial recall of letters confusions are acoustic code must be acoustic

Slide28: 

F D K Y X C M right rite wright right write rite B C P V E C T

Slide29: 

How is STS Limited? 1. Number Hypothesis STS can hold only a fixed number of symbols 7  2 (Miller) 2. Time Hypothesis Any symbol in STS will be lost in around 2 seconds if it is not reactivated by rehearsal Span of STS is determined by decay rate (2 sec) and the rate of rehearsal

Slide30: 

Baddeley, Thomson & Buchanan (1975) tested memory span for words memory span = number of items where immediate serial recall is perfect short words “pig” “bet” long words “noon “rose” (take longer to say to yourself) Memory span was greater for short words Conclude: Your memory span is the number of words you can rehearse in 2 seconds The Time Hypothesis is correct

Slide31: 

Improving STS Capacity 1. Chunking with recoding combine many symbols into one T H E D O G “the dog” 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 2 7 2. Chunking without recoding organize symbols into groups 7 1 6 - 2 7 5 - 7 2 6 1  

Slide32: 

Are STS and LTS Really Different? Classic Theory says “yes”! time capacity cause of forgetting nature of symbols (coding STS a few seconds a few items decay or “getting bumped out” acoustic/ articulatory for words LTS “permanently” “unlimited” retrieval failure anything

Slide33: 

Immediate Free-Recall Serial Position Curve 100% recall 1 2 3 25 primacy asymptote recency | | | serial position

Slide34: 

Immediate Free-Recall Serial Position Curve 100% recall 1 2 3 25 primacy asymptote recency | | | serial position nonrecency LTS STS

Slide35: 

Dissociations in free recall serial position curve 1. No dissociation Condition A is easier than B over all positions 2. A is better than B for nonrecency only A is better for LTS 3. A is better than B for recency only A is better for STS Recall A B A B A B

Slide36: 

Actual Dissociations Supporting STS-LTS Distinction Independent variable presentation rate SLOW vs. FAST intervening task before recall or no task old-age vs. college-age subjects amnesic vs. normal subjects Effect on Recency SLOW = FAST NO TASK > TASK YOUNG ≈ OLD AMNESIC ≥ NORMAL Effect on Nonrecency SLOW > FAST NO TASK = TASK YOUNG > OLD AMNESIC = 0

Slide37: 

Immediate Free-Recall Serial Position Curve 100% recall 1 2 3 25 primacy asymptote recency | | | serial position

Slide38: 

Immediate Free-Recall Serial Position Curve 100% recall 1 2 3 25 primacy asymptote recency | | | serial position Craik (1970) Recency items are recalled worse than nonrecency items in final free recall Supports STS-LTS distinction Negative Recency Effect FINAL FREE RECALL

Slide39: 

Effects of Marijuana on Memory Darley et al. (1973) start •presentation and immediate free recall of ten lists •administration of drug or placebo after one hour - Phase 1 Final free recall of ten lists Recall .4 - .2 - serial position Phase 2 Presentation and immediate free recall of ten new lists Recall .8 - .6 - .4 - .2 - serial position Conclude: Drug hurts transfer from STS to LTS No difference Drug doesn’t effect retrieval from LTS Drug is worse on nonrecency only placebo drug drug placebo

Slide40: 

Problems with Classic Theory (1) You can get recency even when STS isn’t involved Baddeley & Hitch (1977) “Rugby” experiment Roediger & Crowder (1976) “President” experiment 100% serial position of presidents Washington Lincoln Ford Nixon Recency

Slide41: 

(2) The Classic Theory’s view of rehearsal is wrong Craik & Watkins (1973) Phase 1 keep track of most recent “b” word “basket” “spoon” “telephone” “baby” report “baby” Rehearsal time basket - 2 items Phase 2 recall all “b” words % recall | | | | | | | 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Rehearsal Time 20— 10 — Actual Data

Slide42: 

(2) The Classic Theory’s view of rehearsal is wrong Craik & Watkins (1973) Phase 1 keep track of most recent “b” word “basket” “spoon” “telephone” “baby” report “baby” Rehearsal time basket - 2 items Phase 2 recall all “b” words % recall | | | | | | | 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Rehearsal Time 20— 10 — Actual Data (sheer amount of rehearsal doesn’t matter always) If classic theory is right

Slide43: 

Levels of Processing Theory of Memory A modification of the Classic Theory Craik & Lockhart (1972) memory is determined by encoding the “deeper” the processing during encoding, the better the memory amount of rehearsal is not important distinction between STS (primary memory) and LTS (secondary memory) is still present

Slide44: 

Craik & Lockhart (1972) Kinds of rehearsal maintenance - keep repeating word at shallow (phonemic) level KEEPS WORD AVAILABLE, but DOES NOT improve long-term memory for word elaborative - think about the meaning of the word in lots of different ways (semantic) does improve long-term memory

Slide46: 

Event: D O G letters (visual) sound (phonemic) meaning (semantic) concentrate on letters poor memory concentrate on sound fairly short memory concentrate on meaning long lasting memory shallow deep

Slide47: 

1. Personally significant? 2. 2 syllables? 3. Animate? 4. Personally significant? 5. 2 syllables? 6. Animate? 7. Personally significant? 8. 2 syllables? 9. Animate? 10. Personally significant? 11. 2 syllables? 12. Animate? 13. Personally significant? 14. 2 syllables? 15. Animate? 16. Personally significant? 17. 2 syllables? 18. Animate? 19. Personally significant? 20. 2 syllables? 21. Animate?

Slide48: 

Watkins & Watkins, 1974 Supports the idea that negative recency in final recall is due to shallow processing when list length is known (maintenance rehearsal) list length known list length unknown serial position immediate recall final recall

Slide49: 

Support for Levels of Processing Craik & Tulving (1975) Orienting questions Case word in capital letters TABLE subject responds yes Rhyme word rhymes with weight? MARKET subject responds no Sentence word fits in sentence “He met a _______” FRIEND subject responds yes

Slide50: 

Probability of “Hit” in Recognition .8 .6 .4 .2 sentence rhyme case Deeper means better memory “yes” better than “no” (elaboration) yes yes yes no no no

Slide51: 

Some Criticisms 1. Theory fails to emphasize retrieval cues. 2. Theory fails to say exactly what is “deeper” processing Fisher & Craik (1977) Shows that retrieval cues are as important as depth of processing during encoding. STUDY TEST context - item pail - HAIL milk - COW mat - CAT leaf - TREE pail? (HAIL) dog? (CAT) milk? (COW) free? (TREE) rhyme context semantic context rhyme context semantic context cue encoding same cue - rhyme semantic - rhyme same cue - semantic rhyme - semantic

authorStream Live Help