New User Special Price Expires in

Let's log you in.

Sign in with Facebook


Don't have a StudySoup account? Create one here!


Create a StudySoup account

Be part of our community, it's free to join!

Sign up with Facebook


Create your account
By creating an account you agree to StudySoup's terms and conditions and privacy policy

Already have a StudySoup account? Login here

Learning 5/2

by: Elizabeth Heitmann

Learning 5/2 Psyc 4450

Elizabeth Heitmann

Preview These Notes for FREE

Get a free preview of these Notes, just enter your email below.

Unlock Preview
Unlock Preview

Preview these materials now for free

Why put in your email? Get access to more of this material and other relevant free materials for your school

View Preview

About this Document

notes from the lecture on may 2
Christopher L. Hubbell
Class Notes
learning, psych, Psychology
25 ?




Popular in Learning

Popular in Psychlogy

This 6 page Class Notes was uploaded by Elizabeth Heitmann on Monday May 2, 2016. The Class Notes belongs to Psyc 4450 at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute taught by Christopher L. Hubbell in Winter 2016. Since its upload, it has received 8 views. For similar materials see Learning in Psychlogy at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.


Reviews for Learning 5/2


Report this Material


What is Karma?


Karma is the currency of StudySoup.

You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!

Date Created: 05/02/16
Week of May 2 Information Processing: A Model of Associative Learning Stimuli get coded according to independent properties and relationships. They can get associated with any and all responses. III. Stimulus Coding: Attention a. Selective Attention i. Reynolds (1961) 1. Pigeons key pecking 2. One bird only focused on the color, while the other bird focused on the shape 3. Couldn’t pay attention to both s+ stimuli b. A Perceptual Model of Attention i. The Dimensional Model 1. Can only attend to so many stimuli at once 2. Make an observing response based on what stimuli were attended 3. Not only does red get associated with the response but, the dimension of color becomes dominant ii. ED vs. ID shifts 1. Intradimensional shifts (ID): from one problem to another, the dimension doesn’t change 2. Extradimensional shift (ED): the dimension changes from one problem to another 3. Eimas (1966) a. Group 2 had a harder time learning the task in Phase II because they had an ED shift c. Blocking: Attention as a Central Process i. Kamen (1969) 1. Controls: no pre-training 2. Experimentals: 16 noise-shock 3. Both groups went through conditioning with 8 noise & light-shock 4. In test, only controls responded to the light 5. Had evidence that the experimentals attended to the light a. The final pre-training had an SR=.02 b. The first conditioning trial had an SR= .15 6. Testing the hypothesis a. Another experimental group that received a second shock 5 seconds after the noise&light-shock b. Attentional analysis said that second shock should have no effect c. Kamen said the second shock would be surprising and should become associated with the light because it is the only new stimuli. i. Correct ii. Blocking in Humans 1. Trabasso and Bower (1968) a. Presented people with 16 four-letter strings (ex: SLHR) b. Read out loud and had to determine if it was in group A or group B c. During pre-training; i. If second letter is Lgroup A ii. If second letter is Bgroup B d. Conditioning: i. If second letter is L and fourth letter is Rgroup A ii. If second letter is B and fourth letter is Wgroup B e. Test: second letter is omitted i. Pretraining group failed to recognize the pattern with the fourth letter IV. The Role of the Reinforcer: Surprise a. S-R Theorists i. Hull: any reinforcer is presented learning occurs ii. Kamen: only unexpected reinforcers are effective b. Cognitive Theorists: i. Tolman: constantly exploring the world and learning features even if a reinforcer is not present c. A surprising hypothesis i. Surprise triggers a memory search which makes learning more effective d. Marking i. Lieberman, McIntosh and Thomas (1979) 1. Rats running in a T maze a. Turn rightfood after a 1 min. delay b. Turn leftnothing 2. Failed to learn to turn right 3. Only learned if they were removed from the maze for that minute and placed back in the maze to get the food a. Surprise of being handled help them learn to associate turning right with food V. Retrieval a. Effects of Rehearsal on Learning i. Stimulus Duration 1. Grant (1976) a. Delay Matching to Sample(DMTS) b. Pigeons c. As delay increases performance decreases d. Longer the sample is presentedperformance increases ii. Stimulus Predictability 1. Maki (1979) a. Pigeons and discrimination training b. Phase I i. Get food before trialpeck red key & get food ii. Don’t get food before trialpeck green key & get food c. Phase II i. Peck Horizontal lines(s-)no food ii. Peck Vertical lines(s+)get food d. Phase III: modified Phase I i. S+get food before trialpeck red or green key for food ii. S- get food before trialpeck red or green key for food e. Paid better attention when s- was presented and they got food due to surprise i. Better performance b. Interference i. Motor Learning 1. Shea and Upton (1979) a. Moveable dowel in a box b. Control: move dowel 100mm then 200mm, given feedback for improvement c. Experimental: extra movements in between moving 100mm and 200mm, given feedback for improvement d. Didn’t learn as well ii. Classical Conditioning 1. Revusky (1971) a. Rats drink saccharin solution, then given lithium chloride an hour later to condition taste aversion b. Another group drinks saccharin solution then drinks vinegar solution and given lithium chloride to induce taste aversion c. All rats allowed to drink saccharin for 1 hour i. Rats that drank another solution besides saccharin drank more saccharin ii. Vinegar solution interfered with taste aversion c. Retrieval Cues i. Lett (1977) 1. Rats in a T maze 2. Made choiceremoved from maze and placed back in home cage a. Correct choicefed in home cage b. Incorrect choicefed in the start box Further Complexities I. Cognitive Maps a. Tolman and Honzik (1930) b. Olton Radial Arm maze i. Octagon with arms pointing from each side ii. The end of each arm had a piece of bait iii. Rats averaged 7.9/8 arms before repeating an arm iv. High average continued on more complex mazes and when rats were removed from maze c. Morris Water maze i. Kiddie pool filled with milky liquid and a coffee can inside ii. Rats could find where the coffee can was no matter where they were dropped in the pool iii. Would go to original spot first when can was moved d. Rats in a maze: i. Speedvery fast ii. Number of armsvery efficient iii. Resistant to disruption e. Clark’s Nutcrackers i. Birds that need to store 2500 caches of seeds for food in the winter 1. Do they randomly find them or do they remember where seeds are hidden ii. Van Der Wall (1982) 1. Field 2 meters long and 1 meter wide 2. 2 birds allowed to hide seeds, other 2 birds kept away from field 3. Let all 4 birds search for seeds a. Birds that hid the seeds75% successful i. Usually found their caches b. Birds that didn’t hide seeds10% successful 4. Stretched field and moved objects proportionally after birds hid the seeds 5. Still found seeds a. Able to adjust digging sights proportionally with the change in size


Buy Material

Are you sure you want to buy this material for

25 Karma

Buy Material

BOOM! Enjoy Your Free Notes!

We've added these Notes to your profile, click here to view them now.


You're already Subscribed!

Looks like you've already subscribed to StudySoup, you won't need to purchase another subscription to get this material. To access this material simply click 'View Full Document'

Why people love StudySoup

Jim McGreen Ohio University

"Knowing I can count on the Elite Notetaker in my class allows me to focus on what the professor is saying instead of just scribbling notes the whole time and falling behind."

Amaris Trozzo George Washington University

"I made $350 in just two days after posting my first study guide."

Steve Martinelli UC Los Angeles

"There's no way I would have passed my Organic Chemistry class this semester without the notes and study guides I got from StudySoup."

Parker Thompson 500 Startups

"It's a great way for students to improve their educational experience and it seemed like a product that everybody wants, so all the people participating are winning."

Become an Elite Notetaker and start selling your notes online!

Refund Policy


All subscriptions to StudySoup are paid in full at the time of subscribing. To change your credit card information or to cancel your subscription, go to "Edit Settings". All credit card information will be available there. If you should decide to cancel your subscription, it will continue to be valid until the next payment period, as all payments for the current period were made in advance. For special circumstances, please email


StudySoup has more than 1 million course-specific study resources to help students study smarter. If you’re having trouble finding what you’re looking for, our customer support team can help you find what you need! Feel free to contact them here:

Recurring Subscriptions: If you have canceled your recurring subscription on the day of renewal and have not downloaded any documents, you may request a refund by submitting an email to

Satisfaction Guarantee: If you’re not satisfied with your subscription, you can contact us for further help. Contact must be made within 3 business days of your subscription purchase and your refund request will be subject for review.

Please Note: Refunds can never be provided more than 30 days after the initial purchase date regardless of your activity on the site.