Title :

Psychophysics of Associative Learning: Quantitative Properties of Subjective Contingency

Author(s) :

Maia, Susana [Auteur]
Lefevre, Francoise [Auteur]
Sciences Cognitives et Sciences Affectives (SCALab) - UMR 9193
Laboratoire Sciences Cognitives et Sciences Affectives - UMR 9193 [SCALab]
Jozefowiez, Jeremie [Auteur]
Sciences Cognitives et Sciences Affectives (SCALab) - UMR 9193
Laboratoire Sciences Cognitives et Sciences Affectives - UMR 9193 [SCALab]

Journal title :

Journal of experimental psychology. Animal learning and cognition

Abbreviated title :

J Exp Psychol Anim Learn Cogn

Volume number :

44

Pages :

67-81

Publication date :

2017-11

ISSN :

2329-8456

HAL domain(s) :

Sciences cognitives

English abstract : [en]

Allan and collaborators (Allan, Hannah, Crump, & Siegel, 2008; Allan, Siegel, & Tangen, 2005; Siegel, Allan, Hannah, & Crump, 2009) recently proposed to apply signal detection theory to the analysis of contingency judgment ...
Show more >Allan and collaborators (Allan, Hannah, Crump, & Siegel, 2008; Allan, Siegel, & Tangen, 2005; Siegel, Allan, Hannah, & Crump, 2009) recently proposed to apply signal detection theory to the analysis of contingency judgment tasks. When exposed to a flow of stimuli, participants are asked to judge whether there is a contingent relation between a cue and an outcome, that is, whether the subjective cue–outcome contingency exceeds a decision threshold. In this context, we tested the following hypotheses regarding the relation between objective and subjective cue–outcome contingency: (a) The underlying distributions of subjective cue–outcome contingency are Gaussian; (b) The mean distribution of subjective contingency is a linear function of objective cue–outcome contingency; and (c) The variance in the distribution of subjective contingency is constant. The hypotheses were tested by combining a streamed-trial contingency assessment task with a confidence rating procedure. Participants were exposed to rapid flows of stimuli at the end of which they had to judge whether an outcome was more (Experiment 1) or less (Experiment 2) likely to appear following a cue and how sure they were of their judgment. We found that although Hypothesis A seems reasonable, Hypotheses B and C were not. Regarding Hypothesis B, participants were more sensitive to positive than to negative contingencies. Regarding Hypothesis C, the perceived cue–outcome contingency became more variable when the contingency became more positive or negative, but only to a slight extent.Show less >

Language :

Anglais

Audience :

Internationale

Popular science :

Non

Administrative institution(s) :

Université de Lille
CNRS
CHU Lille

Collections :

• Sciences Cognitives et Sciences Affectives (SCALab) - UMR 9193

Research team(s) :

Équipe Action, Vision et Apprentissage (AVA)

Submission date :

2019-02-13T14:18:00Z
2020-04-07T09:37:55Z
2021-01-18T16:32:24Z
2021-01-18T16:37:45Z
2021-07-02T08:12:22Z