The partial reinforcement extinction effect PREE Frode Svartdal
- Slides: 59
The partial reinforcement extinction effect (PREE) Frode Svartdal University of Tromsø
Extinction: Basics n n Extinction is defined in terms of a reinforcement process Extinction contingencies n n n The stimulus (SR or US) is discontinued The learning contingency is discontinued Extinction process n n The conditioned response is reduced (strength, frequency, etc. ) Relearning, … not forgetting
Extinction: Basics Operant conditioning Catania, 1984)
Extinction: Basics Classical conditioning
Factors affecting the extinction rate n n In general: Fast acquisition / high rate of responding fast extinction Amount of reward n n Variability n n High fast extinction Stimulus Response Reinforcement = high ext. persistence Some forms of learning do not extinguish (easily) n Evaluative conditioning (e. g. , Diaz, Ruiz, & Beyens, 2005)
Factors affecting the extinction rate n Partial Reinforcement Extinction Effect n n Partial (Intermittent) Reinforcement (PRF) increased extinction response Continuous Reinforcement (CRF) reduced extinction persistence
First demonstrations Operant conditioning; free operant; rats; Skinner (1938) 50% 100% Classical conditioning; blink response; students; Humphreys (1939)
Free operant Ferster & Culbertson, 1975
Free operant Compared to CRF: PRF • higher asymptotes • more persistent responding under extinction EXTINCTION PRF CRF
Rats, maze running speed under extinction (Weinstock, 1954) PRF (30%) CRF
Classical conditioning (rats): PREE Extinction 25% PRF response rate LOWER than CRF response rate 50% 100% 15%
Classical conditioning; eyelid; human subjects (Svartdal & Flaten, in prep. )
Operant conditioning; humans; Svartdal, 2003, Exp. 4
Conclusions (… preliminary) n PREE is a very robust outcome n Measures & species n n n Bar pressing, rats Maze running, rats Pecking, pigeons Blink reflex, humans, rabbits … Contingency n Operant/instrumental n n n Discrete trial Free operant Classical
But… n How general is the PREE? n n n Alternative methods of analysis n n Reversed PREE observed under some conditions Generalized PREE observed under some conditions Nevin (1988): ”PREE is an artefact because of wrong method of analzing extinction performance” Response unit issue n PREE or not dependig on how the response is defined (Mowrer & Jones, 1945!
Reversed PREE What happens if the subject is exposed to a mixture of PRF and CRF contingencies?
Reversed PREE Pavlik & Carlton, 1965: Rats; bar pressing, free operant n n n Gr. 1: Single contingency; CRF Gr. 2: Single contingency; PRF Gr. 3: Two signalled schedules alternated for the same subjects; CRF + PRF
Reversed PREE Conventional PREE
Reversed PREE
Reversed PREE Pavlik & Carlton (1965): n n Single reinforcement schedules (CRF vs. PRF) in betweengroups experiments PREE Two schedules (CRF vs. PRF) for the same subjects Reversed PREE Other research n n n Reversed PREE observed Generalized PREE (overall increased persistence, but no difference between conditions) Conventional PREE rarely if ever observed in within-subjects manipulations of CRF - PRF
PREE as a generalization: Ecological validity If applied to a situation with a very specific schecule for a specific behavior PREE Example: Single mother – child is begging for toys only from mom If applied to various situations with mixed contingencies Reversed PREE Generalized PREE Example: Mother and father – child begs for toys from both
PREE as a generalization n Relevance to ADHD n n Complex schedules RPREE or GPREE, not PREE Factors associated with slower learning slower extinction n n Attentional problems, difficulties with concentration, memory, … Would add to biological factors
Response unit issue
Free operant responding: What is the response unit? Mowrer & Jones, 1945: What should be counted as the response unit - single responses or the unit of responses required for reinforcement? n n Free-operant Intermittent reinforcemet, e. g. , FR 4
Response unit FR 4 Reinforced responses
PREE Total responses Reversed PREE Total responses / reinforcement ratio
Nevin: PREE is an artefact
PREE: Alternative analyses Nevin, 1988: Behavioral momentum • ”RPREE” is the rule – the response is stronger following CRF • • • in free-operant responding (but not in discrete-trial experiments) following extended training Extinction performance • • Traditional measure: Number of responses Nevin: Slope of the extinction curve
SHORT LONG Nevin, 1988 Absolute number of responses PREE Relative to initial ext response level RPREE
PREE vs. RPREE – important variables n Dependent measure n n Type of situations n n Free operant vs. discrete trial Complexity of situation n n No. of responses vs. relative change One vs. more schedules (e. g. , multiple schedule) Design n Between groups vs. within subjects
PREE typically observed Measure Number of responses Situation Discrete trial Schedule Single Design Between-groups manipulation of reinforcer rate Other CRF schedule must be 100%
PREE: My interests n n Interaction PREE & Reversed PREE Cognition (verbalization) related to behavioral PREE
The experimental situation ”Computer responses” presented Left, right Subject responses recorded Left, right
The experimental situation Task n Complete a four-response chain of responses started by the computer n n ”Obtain as many correct answers as you can. ” Rules (depending on experiment) n n n Subject: R L Instructed task: Identify and apply the functional rule(s) n n E. g. : Computer: L R ”Repeat computer sequence” ”Reverse computer sequence” Feedback (visual, autitory) for correct answer; nothing happens if answer is incorrect
The experimental situation Manipulations (between groups and/or within groups) Rule Reverse (typically used) Repeat Contingency CRF (100%) PRF (20 -60%)
The experimental situation n Reward rate manipulated n n n Between groups Within subjects (multiple schedule) Discrete trial situation; fixed number of trials n n 180 acquisition trials 40 extinction trials
Conventinal PREE; operant responding; students; Svartdal, 2003, Exp. 4
Reversed & conventional PREE; operant responding; students; Svartdal, 2000 Reversed PREE n n n Purpose: Explore the relationship between PREE and RPREE vs. RPREE: Contradiction or compatible effects? Method n n Independent groups: PRF and CRF Within: CRF and PRF
Svartdal, 2000 ctd. n n Multiple schedule, alternating Group 40/40 n n n PRF Group 80/80 n n n Half trials (signalled): 40% Half trials (signalled): 80% ”CRF” Group 80/40 n n Half trials (signalled): 80% Half trials (signalled): 40% ”CRF” + PRF
* No. of responses: RPREE * Relative change: No difference PREE 80% 40%
Svartdal, 2000 ctd. n n Relationship between schedule components Simplest assumption: Modulation between component schedules: n 60% + context = 60% reference n 60% + context = 100% reduced persistence n 60% + context = 20% increaced persistence
Performance of a 60% schedule depending on other schedule = 100%, 60%, or 20% Svartdal, 2000
Svartdal, F. (2000). Persistence during extinction: Conventional and Reversed PREE under multiple schedules. Learning and Motivation, 31, 21 -40.
Cognition in PREE • Currently: Strong cognitive arguments to interpret conditioning in terms of cognition • • • Classical conditioning: Lovibond & Shanks, 2002 Operant conditioning: Shanks & St John, 1994 Implicit learning doubted: Shanks, 2005 Extinction: Lovibond, 2004 Basic argument: CONTINGENCY CONSCIOUS APPREHENSION BEHAVIORAL CHANGE CONTINGENCY CONSCIOUS APPREHENSION NO BEHAVIORAL CHANGE • Large number of studies supporting this assumption
Cognition in PREE n n So, since the behvioral PREE is very robust, a ”cognitive PREE” must be easy to measure Basic prosedure: n Behavioral acquisition under 100% vs. 60% reinforcer rate n Measurement of verbalized PREE
Cognition in PREE Prediction of persistence: ”How likely is it that you will continue responding if reward no longer appears? ” Several experiments have demonstrated no sensitivity to learning history in predictions
3 extinction trials; immediate behavioral sensitivity No difference in predictions Svartdal & Silvera, in prep.
Cognition in PREE Retrospective judgments: ”How many responses did you emit after reward no longer appeared? ” Subjects are very accurate in descrbing their own behavior, including their own extinction persistence
Cognition in PREE Svartdal, F. (2003). Extinction after partial reinforcement: Predicted vs. judged persistence. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 44, 55 -64.
Meta-cognitive PREE? n n We all have long experience with various contingencies Maybe a ”meta-cognition” evolves: n n Uncertain outcomes Persist Certain outcomes Quit
Meta-cognitive PREE? n Scenarioes presented to subjects, manipulation n Reliable outcome vs. Unreliable outcome Persistence judgments of behavior
Meta-cognitive PREE? Naive students: No effect of outcome manipulation
Meta-cognitive PREE? Psychology students Naive students (have read about PREE)
Meta-cognitive PREE? Svartdal, F. (2000). Persistence during extinction: Are judgments of persistence affected by contingency information? Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 41, 315 -328.
PREE: Theory Mowrer & Jones: Diskriminasjonshypotesen n PRF: n n n Læringbetingelsene ekstinksjonsbetingelsene Generalisering til ekstinksjon CRF: n n Læringbetingelsene # ekstinksjonsbetingelsene Liten generalisering til ekstinksjon
PREE: Theory Amsel: Frustrasjonshypotesen n PRF: n n n Forventning om belønning frustrasjon når belønning uteblir Frustrasjons-cues assosieres med læringssituasjonen Under ekstinksjon: Frustrasjon pga uteblitt belønning Læringssituasjonen ekstinksjonssituasjonen CRF: n n Frustrasjon oppstår ikke under læring Læringssituasjonen # ekstinksjonssituasjonen
PREE: Theory Capaldi: Sequential hypothesis n PRF: n n Ikke-belønnede trials blir signal på at belønning snart vil følge: … N N N R … Dvs. : Det opparbeides en forventning om belønning når belønning uteblir Under ekstinksjon: Mange responser pga forventning om belønning CRF: n n Ingen erfaring med uteblitt belønning under læring Under ekstinksjon: Få responser
PREE: Theory n Status: n n n Discrete-trial-situasjonen n n Diskriminasjonshypotesen står svakt Amsels hypotese står rimelig sterkt Capaldis hypotese står ganske sterkt Nevins modell: Ingen hypotese i vanlig forstand Capaldi og Amsel dominerende Fri-operant-situasjonen n Svak teoretisk forståelse
Evaluative conditioning n Neutral stimulus n n n ζ Neutral stimulus paired with US n n E. g. , ζ + MURDER Extinction n ζ alone Test n ζ is evaluated in accordance with MURDER
- Frode svartdal
- Partial reinforcement effect
- Background extinction rate definition
- Secondary reinforcers
- Visuell beskrivning
- Frode hauge
- Losje ullevål stadion
- Kognitiv belastning
- Frode hjellset
- Frode kvarsnes
- Frode flægstad
- Frode eika sandnes
- Frode eika sandnes
- Frode fjeldsbø
- What is a reinforcement schedule
- Partial reinforcement
- Fixed interval schedule example
- The process of acquiring through experience new
- Example of fixed ratio schedule
- Albert bandura operant conditioning
- Schedules of reinforcement ap psychology
- Chloride shift
- Founder effect vs bottleneck effect
- Income effect formula
- Types of extinction
- Permian extinction
- Higher order conditioning ap psychology definition
- Optical activity
- Golden toad extinction cause
- Fish 395 m.y.a
- Ewald oseen extinction theorem
- Extinction vortex
- Ignition extinction curve
- Alternatives to escape extinction
- Apes chapter 9 sustaining biodiversity
- Divergent evolution
- Permian extinction
- Pronator drift
- Contoh kasus extinction
- Extinction aba definition
- Current background extinction rate
- Extinction effects have not been documented clearly in
- Phaneozoic
- Extinction board
- Earth day endangered species
- Project termination by extinction
- Extinction burst adalah
- Quaternary extinction
- Contoh extinction adalah
- Simultaneous extinction
- Modes of speciation ppt
- Extinction vs extirpation
- Extinction clip art
- Symmetrical extinction of minerals
- Define extinction angle
- True color of mineral
- Tư thế ngồi viết
- ưu thế lai là gì
- Thẻ vin
- Cái miệng nó xinh thế