PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

B J House

Publications and source records attributed to B J House.

13 recordsLinked to original sources

Some current issues in children's selective attention.

A large part of the history of learning theory of the last 25 years consists of devising ways to deal with stimulus selectivity. Earlier theories that assumed contiguity of stimulus and response to be a sufficient condition for formation of an association were found wanting. This paper has described some of the ways theorists have attacked the problem. These theoretical solutions were of two general types--two-stage theories with stimulus selection preceding association and theories that altered associative processing. Both types of theories successfully handled selective phenomena, and there is no clear basis at present for preferring one or the other. A question generally neglected by early attention theorists concerns the nature of a stimulus. How is the stimulus complex available to a subject divided into cues or elements that can be selectively responded to? Related questions are whether the experimenter's perception of stimulus elements correspond to the subject's view, and whether elements are perceived the same by all subjects. The answer to the last two questions appears to be in the negative. Recent research relative to these questions with children, adults, and nonhuman organisms is reviewed.

Animals↗

Effect of CW YAG and argon green lasers on experimentally detached retinas.

We evaluated the effects of argon-green (514.5 nm) and CW neodymium YAG (1060 nm) wavelengths on experimentally detached retinas of primates. Neither laser produced damage to the sensory retina of the fovea. The argon green wavelength, which was absorbed by haemoglobin in the vessel or by extravasated red blood cells, created vasospasm and nerve fiber layer damage. The beam of the CW YAG was not absorbed by haemoglobin; therefore, no vasospasm could be produced on experimentally detached retinas.

Animals↗

Logographic reading by TMR adults.

Ten moderately retarded adults learned a set of 16 logographic signs. Subjects were asked to demonstrate sentences formed from the signs using dolls and other toys. They were also asked to pick out signs and form a sentence after watching the experimenter demonstrate an event. All subjects were able to demonstrate sentences with only minor errors. Only about half were completely successful in constructing four- and five-word sentences. The method of construction of most subjects revealed a semantic--syntactic disengagement; the signs were chosen in nonsentence order, apparently in order of salience of the referents. After collecting the signs, most subjects were able to put them in correct sentence order. The results support the feasibility of a logographic system for nonreading retarded adults.

Adult↗

A limitation on the law of effect.

Nineteen mildly or moderately retarded subjects were presented 32 oddity-training trials per day for 10 days with all new etimuli presented on each trial. Six subjects learned oddity, approaching an asymptote of 100 percent correct. Six others showed a strong preference (78 percent) for the odd stimulus but failed to improve. Seven remained in the performance range of 50 to 60 percent without improving. On eight trials per day, the two specific cues of an oddity display, chosen randomly, were presented alone as probes for specific-cue learning. Probe trials were above chance for all subjects. These results show that attention to the relevant dimension, demonstrated by oddity preference, plus adequate reinforcing conditions, indicated by specific-cue learning, did not ensure oddity learning. We concluded that subjects do not necessarily learn about the cues that control behavior. The operation of differential forgetting and/or rehearsal of relative vs. specific vs. specific cues was proposed as a likely explanation.

Adolescent↗

Scientific explanation and ecological validity: a reply to Brooks and Baumeister.

There are two different goals a researcher might have in studying behavior of retarded persons. One is to gain a scientific understanding of low intelligence as a subcategory of human intellectual functioning. The other is to develop practical techniques for prediction, control, and remediation of retardation in daily life. Brooks and Baumeister (1977) have confused the two and have advocated methods suitable for practical application to answer questions about the nature of retardation. They have done a disservice to the field in disparaging basic research.

Cues↗