PubMed Health⌕ Search

SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “Reinforcement learning”

Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 469 records · Page 26Linked to original sources
PubMed1963

The effects of drl schedules on some characteristics of word utterance.

The utterances of particular words-"selected verbal responses" (SVR's)-were reinforced according to five different drl schedules and studied under changes in the schedule and/or the SVR. The emissions of SVR's were shaped by the procedure, while the rates of saying all the different words were unaffected. The distributions of the percentages of different IRT's and IRT's/OP's changed very little when only the SVR was changed, suggesting that reinforcements had their main effect upon some kind of "delaying behavior." The modal IRT classes were just above the drl specifications, and there was no evidence of a second modal class at short IRT's. The differences between actual and optimum median IRT's were fairly constant under different drl schedules. Individual differences appeared in the behavior interpolated between SVR's: some subjects (Ss) counted the number of intervening words, some reported increases in tension, and still others seemed to change the pitch of voice in a cyclical pattern. The transcripts of intervening verbal behavior indicated the presence of some chains of words, presumably formed before the experiment and "adapted" to the length of the delay required for reinforcement. In the experimental situation the formation of verbal chains was only rarely observable.

Learning↗
PubMed1963

Behavioral effects of pairing an S-D with a decreasing limited-hold reinforcement schedule.

Four pigeons were trained on a multiple reinforcement schedule consisting of two limited-hold schedules, one in which a discriminative stimulus (S(D)) accompanied the periodic reinforcement contingency, and one in which the discriminative stimulus was omitted. The duration of the limited-hold in each component of the multiple schedule was reduced in parallel steps. It was shown that behavioral differences between the two schedules were attenuated by this manipulation of temporal parameters. When S(D) was reduced in duration, three out of four pigeons responded with extremely high S(Delta) rates, despite the regular pairing of S(Delta) with the reinforcement contingency. These high rates qualitatively resembled the rapid rates emitted on the analogous no-S(D) component.

Animals↗
PubMed2005

Learning processes in matching and oddity: the oddity preference effect and sample reinforcement.

Eight pigeons learned either matching (to sample) or oddity (from sample) with or without reward for sample responding. The training stimuli were coarse-white, fine-black, or smooth-mauve gravels in pots with buried grain as the reinforcer. Oddity without sample reward was learned most rapidly, followed by matching with sample reward, oddity with sample reward, and matching without sample reward. Transfer was related to acquisition rate: The oddity group without sample reward showed full (equal to baseline) color and texture transfer; the matching group with sample reward showed partial texture transfer; other groups showed no transfer. Sample reward was shown to determine rate of acquisition of matching and oddity and the oddity preference effect. The results are discussed in terms of item-specific associations operating early in learning prior to any relational learning between sample and comparison stimuli.

Analysis of Variance↗