| 1. |
- Brehmer, Berndt, 1940-, et al.
(författare)
-
Omission of feedback in single-cue probability learning
- 1971
-
Rapport (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- Brehmer,B.,and Lindberg, L. Omission of feedback in single-cue probability learning. Umeå Psychological Reports, No. 46, 1971. - The effects of the omission of feedback in single-cue probability learning was studied as a function of the sign and magnitude of the correlation between cue and criterion variables, the magnitude of the slope relating the criterion values to the cue values, and the magnitude of the unaccounted for variance in the task in three experiments. Replicating earlier findings, the results of these experiments show that the omission of feedback results in an increase in the correlations between cues and judgments. This increase in correlations is due to an increase in the slopes of the regression lines relating the subjects' judgments to the cue values.
|
|
| 2. |
- Lindberg, Lars-Åke, 1940-, et al.
(författare)
-
Effects of task information and active feedback control in inductive inference
- 1977
-
Rapport (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- Lindberg, L-Å., and Brehmer, B. Effects of task information and active feedback control in inductive inference. Umeå Psychological Reports No. 123, 1977. - Learning of an inductive task with one linear and one quadratic cue was investigated in a 2 (levels of task information: maximum vs. minimum) x 2 (control of outcome feedback: active vs.passive) x H (blocks of trials) factorial experiment. In the maximum information condition subjects were given the criterion distribution, including the mean, for each combination of cue values. Under the active feedback condition subjects selected cue combinations and feedback instances in whatever order they wanted. Positive effects of all three factors were obtained with respect to subjects'selection of inference rules and level of task control. It was concluded that subjects' inconsistency under ordinary outcome feedback conditions is due in part to lack of memory capacity and in part to the fact that subjects are prevented from active hypothesis testing. However,these factors do not fully explain the lack of consistency as shown by the fact that subjects under the present maximal information/active feedback condition did not reach the maximal level of task control, although they used the optimal inference rules.
|
|
| 3. |
- Lindberg, Lars-Åke, 1940-, et al.
(författare)
-
Progression and hypothesis testing in an inductive inference task
- 1977
-
Rapport (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- Lindberg, L-Å., & Brehmer, B. Progression and hypothesis testing in an inductive inference task. Umeå Psychological Reports No. 121, 1977. - Subjects performance in a two-cue inference task was studied in three experiments as a function of (1) relative cue complexity, (2) relative cue validity, (3) task predictability, and (4) cue-criterion function form.Cues were defined through the velocity (more complex) and starting position (less complex) of a moving light spot. Results indicate that while relative cue complexity does not affect performance, the statistical structure of the task determines subjects' relative cue weighting as well as the final level of task control. These results contradict the Progression hypothesis, formulated for perceptual-motor skill development in tracking, and are consistent with earlier studies within the regression-correlation paradigm.
|
|
| 4. |
- Lindberg, Lars-Åke, 1940-, et al.
(författare)
-
Subjects' selection of feedback information in an inductive inference task
- 1977
-
Rapport (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- Lindberg, L-Å.,and Brehmer, B. Subjects' selection of feedback information in an inductive inference task. Umeå Psychological Reports No. 122, 1977. - Subjects' selection of outcome feedback instances in a probabilistic inference task with one linear and one nonlinear cue was investigated in a 2 (levels of task information: maximum vs. minimum) x 4 (blocks of trials) factorial experiment. Maximal information included the criterion distribution for each cue combination as well as aids for recording feedback instances, while minimal information consisted of standard instructions and no memory aids. Under both information conditions, subjects (1) examined one cue at a time, (2) gave priority to the more difficult quadratic cue, and (3) systematically changed their distribution and order of selections as a function of blocks.That is, subjects used the feedback infornation in a way that is not possible in the standard experimenter controlled reception paradigm. Furthermore, subjects made consequtive selections of the same cue combination more frequently in the maximum information condition that in the minimum information condition. These results are consistent with the assumptions that subjects under both conditions try to find the functional parameters of the task by means of a hypothesis testing activity, and that they learn to eliminate incorrect hypotheses with practice.
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
