FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W4380150147> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W4380150147 endingPage "2585.e2" @default.
• W4380150147 startingPage "2582" @default.
• W4380150147 abstract "•Implicit learning is thought to be gradual and associative •Explicit learning is thought to be relatively abrupt and rule governed •Pigeons learn a difficult task using implicit associations •Humans fail to learn a similar task using explicit learning Humans can learn tasks explicitly, as they can often describe the rules they have used to learn the task. 1 Smith J.D. Berg M.E. Cook R.G. Murphy M.S. Crossley M.J. Boomer J. Spiering B. Beran M.J. Church B.A. Ashby F.G. et al. Implicit and explicit categorization: a tale of four species. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 2012; 36: 2355-2369https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2012.09.003 Crossref PubMed Scopus (81) Google Scholar ,2 Navarro V.M. Jani R. Wasserman E.A. Pigeon category learning: revisiting the Shepard, Hovland, and Jenkins (1961) tasks. J. Exp. Psychol. Anim. Learn. Cogn. 2019; 45: 174-184https://doi.org/10.1037/xan0000198 Crossref PubMed Scopus (6) Google Scholar ,3 O’Donoghue E.M. Broschard M.B. Wasserman E.A. Pigeons exhibit flexibility but not rule formation in dimensional learning, stimulus generalization, and task switching. J. Exp. Psychol. Anim. Learn. Cogn. 2020; 46: 107-123https://doi.org/10.1037/xan0000234 Crossref PubMed Scopus (13) Google Scholar Animals, however, are thought to learn tasks implicitly (i.e., purely associatively). 2 Navarro V.M. Jani R. Wasserman E.A. Pigeon category learning: revisiting the Shepard, Hovland, and Jenkins (1961) tasks. J. Exp. Psychol. Anim. Learn. Cogn. 2019; 45: 174-184https://doi.org/10.1037/xan0000198 Crossref PubMed Scopus (6) Google Scholar ,3 O’Donoghue E.M. Broschard M.B. Wasserman E.A. Pigeons exhibit flexibility but not rule formation in dimensional learning, stimulus generalization, and task switching. J. Exp. Psychol. Anim. Learn. Cogn. 2020; 46: 107-123https://doi.org/10.1037/xan0000234 Crossref PubMed Scopus (13) Google Scholar That is, they gradually learn the correlation or association between the stimulus (or response) and the outcome. Both humans and pigeons can learn matching, where a sample stimulus indicates which one of two stimuli matches the sample. The 1-back reinforcement task is a difficult version of matching in which a correct response on trial N is rewarded only following a response on trial N + 1 (independent of the response on trial N + 1), 4 Smith J.D. Jackson B.N. Church B.A. Monkeys (Macaca mulatta) learn two-choice discriminations under displaced reinforcement. J. Comp. Psychol. 2020; 134: 423-434https://doi.org/10.1037/com0000227 Crossref Scopus (8) Google Scholar and the correct response on trial N + 1 indicates whether a reward will occur on trial N + 2, and so forth. Humans do not appear to be able to learn the 1-back rule. 5 Nosarzewska A. Peng D.N. Zentall T.R. Pigeons acquire the 1-back task: Implications for implicit versus explicit learning. Learn. Behav. 2021; 49: 363-372 Crossref PubMed Scopus (4) Google Scholar Pigeons, however, do show 1-back reinforcement learning, 6 Zentall T.R. Peng D.N. Mueller P.M. 1-Back reinforcement matching and mismatching by pigeons: Implicit or explicit learning?. Behav. Proc. 2022; 195104562 Crossref PubMed Scopus (2) Google Scholar ,7 Zentall T.R. Mueller P.M. Peng D.N. 1-Back reinforcement symbolic-matching by humans: how do they learn it?. Learn. Behav. 2023; https://doi.org/10.3758/s13420-022-00558-w Crossref PubMed Scopus (1) Google Scholar and they appear to do so implicitly by gradually learning the correlation between their response on one trial and the outcome on the next trial (because all other relations are uncorrelated with the outcome). They learn the task slowly and to a level below what would be expected had they learned it explicitly. The present results, together with research with humans, 7 Zentall T.R. Mueller P.M. Peng D.N. 1-Back reinforcement symbolic-matching by humans: how do they learn it?. Learn. Behav. 2023; https://doi.org/10.3758/s13420-022-00558-w Crossref PubMed Scopus (1) Google Scholar suggest that there are times when human explicit learning may interfere with the ability of humans to learn. Pigeons, however, are not “distracted” by attempts at explicit learning, and thus they are able to learn this and other similar tasks. 6 Zentall T.R. Peng D.N. Mueller P.M. 1-Back reinforcement matching and mismatching by pigeons: Implicit or explicit learning?. Behav. Proc. 2022; 195104562 Crossref PubMed Scopus (2) Google Scholar ,7 Zentall T.R. Mueller P.M. Peng D.N. 1-Back reinforcement symbolic-matching by humans: how do they learn it?. Learn. Behav. 2023; https://doi.org/10.3758/s13420-022-00558-w Crossref PubMed Scopus (1) Google Scholar ,8 Wasserman E.A. Kain A.G. O’ Donoghue E.M. Resolving the associative learning paradox by category learning in pigeons. Cur. Bio. 2023; 33: 1-5https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2023.01.024 Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (3) Google Scholar Humans can learn tasks explicitly, as they can often describe the rules they have used to learn the task. 1 Smith J.D. Berg M.E. Cook R.G. Murphy M.S. Crossley M.J. Boomer J. Spiering B. Beran M.J. Church B.A. Ashby F.G. et al. Implicit and explicit categorization: a tale of four species. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 2012; 36: 2355-2369https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2012.09.003 Crossref PubMed Scopus (81) Google Scholar ,2 Navarro V.M. Jani R. Wasserman E.A. Pigeon category learning: revisiting the Shepard, Hovland, and Jenkins (1961) tasks. J. Exp. Psychol. Anim. Learn. Cogn. 2019; 45: 174-184https://doi.org/10.1037/xan0000198 Crossref PubMed Scopus (6) Google Scholar ,3 O’Donoghue E.M. Broschard M.B. Wasserman E.A. Pigeons exhibit flexibility but not rule formation in dimensional learning, stimulus generalization, and task switching. J. Exp. Psychol. Anim. Learn. Cogn. 2020; 46: 107-123https://doi.org/10.1037/xan0000234 Crossref PubMed Scopus (13) Google Scholar Animals, however, are thought to learn tasks implicitly (i.e., purely associatively). 2 Navarro V.M. Jani R. Wasserman E.A. Pigeon category learning: revisiting the Shepard, Hovland, and Jenkins (1961) tasks. J. Exp. Psychol. Anim. Learn. Cogn. 2019; 45: 174-184https://doi.org/10.1037/xan0000198 Crossref PubMed Scopus (6) Google Scholar ,3 O’Donoghue E.M. Broschard M.B. Wasserman E.A. Pigeons exhibit flexibility but not rule formation in dimensional learning, stimulus generalization, and task switching. J. Exp. Psychol. Anim. Learn. Cogn. 2020; 46: 107-123https://doi.org/10.1037/xan0000234 Crossref PubMed Scopus (13) Google Scholar That is, they gradually learn the correlation or association between the stimulus (or response) and the outcome. Both humans and pigeons can learn matching, where a sample stimulus indicates which one of two stimuli matches the sample. The 1-back reinforcement task is a difficult version of matching in which a correct response on trial N is rewarded only following a response on trial N + 1 (independent of the response on trial N + 1), 4 Smith J.D. Jackson B.N. Church B.A. Monkeys (Macaca mulatta) learn two-choice discriminations under displaced reinforcement. J. Comp. Psychol. 2020; 134: 423-434https://doi.org/10.1037/com0000227 Crossref Scopus (8) Google Scholar and the correct response on trial N + 1 indicates whether a reward will occur on trial N + 2, and so forth. Humans do not appear to be able to learn the 1-back rule. 5 Nosarzewska A. Peng D.N. Zentall T.R. Pigeons acquire the 1-back task: Implications for implicit versus explicit learning. Learn. Behav. 2021; 49: 363-372 Crossref PubMed Scopus (4) Google Scholar Pigeons, however, do show 1-back reinforcement learning, 6 Zentall T.R. Peng D.N. Mueller P.M. 1-Back reinforcement matching and mismatching by pigeons: Implicit or explicit learning?. Behav. Proc. 2022; 195104562 Crossref PubMed Scopus (2) Google Scholar ,7 Zentall T.R. Mueller P.M. Peng D.N. 1-Back reinforcement symbolic-matching by humans: how do they learn it?. Learn. Behav. 2023; https://doi.org/10.3758/s13420-022-00558-w Crossref PubMed Scopus (1) Google Scholar and they appear to do so implicitly by gradually learning the correlation between their response on one trial and the outcome on the next trial (because all other relations are uncorrelated with the outcome). They learn the task slowly and to a level below what would be expected had they learned it explicitly. The present results, together with research with humans, 7 Zentall T.R. Mueller P.M. Peng D.N. 1-Back reinforcement symbolic-matching by humans: how do they learn it?. Learn. Behav. 2023; https://doi.org/10.3758/s13420-022-00558-w Crossref PubMed Scopus (1) Google Scholar suggest that there are times when human explicit learning may interfere with the ability of humans to learn. Pigeons, however, are not “distracted” by attempts at explicit learning, and thus they are able to learn this and other similar tasks. 6 Zentall T.R. Peng D.N. Mueller P.M. 1-Back reinforcement matching and mismatching by pigeons: Implicit or explicit learning?. Behav. Proc. 2022; 195104562 Crossref PubMed Scopus (2) Google Scholar ,7 Zentall T.R. Mueller P.M. Peng D.N. 1-Back reinforcement symbolic-matching by humans: how do they learn it?. Learn. Behav. 2023; https://doi.org/10.3758/s13420-022-00558-w Crossref PubMed Scopus (1) Google Scholar ,8 Wasserman E.A. Kain A.G. O’ Donoghue E.M. Resolving the associative learning paradox by category learning in pigeons. Cur. Bio. 2023; 33: 1-5https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2023.01.024 Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (3) Google Scholar" @default.
• W4380150147 created "2023-06-11" @default.
• W4380150147 creator A5006711081 @default.
• W4380150147 creator A5018135959 @default.
• W4380150147 date "2023-06-01" @default.
• W4380150147 modified "2023-10-17" @default.
• W4380150147 title "Implicit learning of the one-back reinforcement matching-mismatching task by pigeons" @default.
• W4380150147 cites W1986724288 @default.
• W4380150147 cites W2082636843 @default.
• W4380150147 cites W2095921698 @default.
• W4380150147 cites W2764083906 @default.
• W4380150147 cites W2786586021 @default.
• W4380150147 cites W2922251172 @default.
• W4380150147 cites W3000637118 @default.
• W4380150147 cites W3024761197 @default.
• W4380150147 cites W3136916263 @default.
• W4380150147 cites W4200050570 @default.
• W4380150147 cites W4287511630 @default.
• W4380150147 cites W4313488365 @default.
• W4380150147 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2023.05.045" @default.
• W4380150147 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37301201" @default.
• W4380150147 hasPublicationYear "2023" @default.
• W4380150147 type Work @default.
• W4380150147 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W4380150147 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W4380150147 hasAuthorship W4380150147A5006711081 @default.
• W4380150147 hasAuthorship W4380150147A5018135959 @default.
• W4380150147 hasConcept C105795698 @default.
• W4380150147 hasConcept C154945302 @default.
• W4380150147 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W4380150147 hasConcept C162324750 @default.
• W4380150147 hasConcept C165064840 @default.
• W4380150147 hasConcept C180747234 @default.
• W4380150147 hasConcept C187736073 @default.
• W4380150147 hasConcept C2780451532 @default.
• W4380150147 hasConcept C33923547 @default.
• W4380150147 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W4380150147 hasConcept C67203356 @default.
• W4380150147 hasConcept C77805123 @default.
• W4380150147 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W4380150147 hasConcept C97541855 @default.
• W4380150147 hasConceptScore W4380150147C105795698 @default.
• W4380150147 hasConceptScore W4380150147C154945302 @default.
• W4380150147 hasConceptScore W4380150147C15744967 @default.
• W4380150147 hasConceptScore W4380150147C162324750 @default.
• W4380150147 hasConceptScore W4380150147C165064840 @default.
• W4380150147 hasConceptScore W4380150147C180747234 @default.
• W4380150147 hasConceptScore W4380150147C187736073 @default.
• W4380150147 hasConceptScore W4380150147C2780451532 @default.
• W4380150147 hasConceptScore W4380150147C33923547 @default.
• W4380150147 hasConceptScore W4380150147C41008148 @default.
• W4380150147 hasConceptScore W4380150147C67203356 @default.
• W4380150147 hasConceptScore W4380150147C77805123 @default.
• W4380150147 hasConceptScore W4380150147C86803240 @default.
• W4380150147 hasConceptScore W4380150147C97541855 @default.
• W4380150147 hasIssue "12" @default.
• W4380150147 hasLocation W43801501471 @default.
• W4380150147 hasLocation W43801501472 @default.
• W4380150147 hasOpenAccess W4380150147 @default.
• W4380150147 hasPrimaryLocation W43801501471 @default.
• W4380150147 hasRelatedWork W1564932097 @default.
• W4380150147 hasRelatedWork W1997088969 @default.
• W4380150147 hasRelatedWork W20361778 @default.
• W4380150147 hasRelatedWork W2148857338 @default.
• W4380150147 hasRelatedWork W2185410470 @default.
• W4380150147 hasRelatedWork W2909304650 @default.
• W4380150147 hasRelatedWork W2949964922 @default.
• W4380150147 hasRelatedWork W2997970896 @default.
• W4380150147 hasRelatedWork W3140999851 @default.
• W4380150147 hasRelatedWork W4200319971 @default.
• W4380150147 hasVolume "33" @default.
• W4380150147 isParatext "false" @default.
• W4380150147 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W4380150147 workType "article" @default.