Premium
COMPARING THE EFFECTS OF TWO CORRECTION PROCEDURES ON HUMAN ACQUISITION OF SEQUENTIAL BEHAVIOR PATTERNS
Author(s) -
Deitz Samuel M.,
Fredrick Laura D.,
Quinn Patrick C.,
Brasher Lynda D.
Publication year - 1986
Publication title -
journal of the experimental analysis of behavior
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.75
H-Index - 61
eISSN - 1938-3711
pISSN - 0022-5002
DOI - 10.1901/jeab.1986.46-1
Subject(s) - random sequence , stimulus (psychology) , sequence (biology) , computer science , artificial intelligence , pattern recognition (psychology) , speech recognition , communication , algorithm , psychology , mathematics , cognitive psychology , biology , mathematical analysis , distribution (mathematics) , genetics
Thirty‐one college undergraduates learned to touch abstract stimuli on a computer screen in arbitrarily designated “correct” sequential orders. Four sets of seven stimuli were used; the stimuli were arrayed horizontally on the screen in random sequences. A correct response (i.e., touching first the stimulus designated as first) resulted in that stimulus appearing near the top of the screen in its correct sequential position (left to right), and remaining there until the end of the trial. Incorrect responses (i.e., touching a stimulus out of sequence) terminated the trial. New trials displayed either the same sequence as the one on which an error had occurred (same‐order correction procedure), or a new random sequence (new‐order correction procedure). Whenever all responses occurred in the correct sequence, the next trial displayed a new random sequence. Each phase ended when five consecutive correct response sequences occurred. Initially, the same‐order correction procedure increased control by the position as well as by the shape of the stimuli; also, it produced more errors, more total trials, more trials to mastery, and more individual patterns of reacquisition than were produced by the new‐order procedure.