Psychology Generalization and Discrimination
fig.1. Stimulus generalization gradient for subjects that were trained to identify the target length which is of 75 as the dimension of length and were tested in the presence of the other dimensions of length.
fig.2. Effect of intradimensional discrimination training on stimulus control. Subjects received discrimination training in which the S- was 85 as the dimension of length, keeping the S+ 75 as the dimension of length.
2 . In Figure 1, it shows the comparison of the stimulus generalization gradients of two different subject groups, between the class average and me as an individual. To commence with, lets talk about the curve representing the class mean. The shape of the graph is basically symmetrical between 55 and 80, which these numbers are the indication of the length of the line presented. Though 75 is the target length, the highest rate of response occurred in response to the length of 65 and 70, both encountering 100% of responses. The subjects also made substantial numbers of responses when length of 60 and 75 were tested. However, when length of 55 and 80 were tested, response rates decreased quite dramatically, only 20% of the total responses were recorded, making the graph a bell-shaped one. As for length of 85 or above, no responses were detected.
For the curve representing my own result, it is more or less a symmetrical graph as well. The highest rate of response occurred in response to the original length of 75. Once again, substantial numbers of responses were also detected when length of 70 and 80 were tested. Yet there is a huge decrement of response for much shorter or longer lengths (i.e., 55-65 and 85-95), no responses were detected. These two curves both serve to indicate the phenomenon of stimulus generalization, though the individual result better explains it. The peak of response rate lies on or around (for the class mean) the target length,75. But quite a similar percentage of total responses were also made to the
fig.2. Effect of intradimensional discrimination training on stimulus control. Subjects received discrimination training in which the S- was 85 as the dimension of length, keeping the S+ 75 as the dimension of length.
2 . In Figure 1, it shows the comparison of the stimulus generalization gradients of two different subject groups, between the class average and me as an individual. To commence with, lets talk about the curve representing the class mean. The shape of the graph is basically symmetrical between 55 and 80, which these numbers are the indication of the length of the line presented. Though 75 is the target length, the highest rate of response occurred in response to the length of 65 and 70, both encountering 100% of responses. The subjects also made substantial numbers of responses when length of 60 and 75 were tested. However, when length of 55 and 80 were tested, response rates decreased quite dramatically, only 20% of the total responses were recorded, making the graph a bell-shaped one. As for length of 85 or above, no responses were detected.
For the curve representing my own result, it is more or less a symmetrical graph as well. The highest rate of response occurred in response to the original length of 75. Once again, substantial numbers of responses were also detected when length of 70 and 80 were tested. Yet there is a huge decrement of response for much shorter or longer lengths (i.e., 55-65 and 85-95), no responses were detected. These two curves both serve to indicate the phenomenon of stimulus generalization, though the individual result better explains it. The peak of response rate lies on or around (for the class mean) the target length,75. But quite a similar percentage of total responses were also made to the