Abstract
We demonstrate the In Situ testbed, a system that aids in evaluating computational models of learning, including artificial neural networks. The testbed models contingencies of reinforcement rising an extension of Mechner's (1959) notational system for the description of behavioral procedures. These contingencies are input to the model under test. The model's output is displayed as cumulative records. The cumulative record can then be compared to one produced by a pigeon exposed to the same contingencies. The testbed is tried with three published models of learning. Each model is exposed to up to three reinforcement schedules (testing ends when the model does not produce acceptable cumulative records): continuous reinforcement and extinction, fixed ratio, and fixed interval. The In Sitt testbed appears to be a reliable and valid testing procedure for comparing models of learning.
Full Text
The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (403.0 KB).
Selected References
These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
- BUSH R. R., MOSTELLER F. A mathematical model for simple learning. Psychol Rev. 1951 Sep;58(5):313–323. doi: 10.1037/h0054388. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Baum W. M. The correlation-based law of effect. J Exp Anal Behav. 1973 Jul;20(1):137–153. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1973.20-137. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Baum W., Schwendiman J., Bell K. Choice, contingency discrimination, and foraging theory. J Exp Anal Behav. 1999 May;71(3):355–373. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1999.71-355. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Capehart G. W., Eckerman D. A., Guilkey M., Shull R. L. A comparison of ratio and interval reinforcement schedules with comparable interreinforcement times. J Exp Anal Behav. 1980 Jul;34(1):61–76. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1980.34-61. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Church R. M. Quantitative models of animal learning and cognition. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 1997 Oct;23(4):379–389. doi: 10.1037//0097-7403.23.4.379. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Donahoe J. W., Palmer D. C., Burgos J. E. The S-R issue: its status in behavior analysis and in Donahoe and Palmer's learning and complex behavior. J Exp Anal Behav. 1997 Mar;67(2):193–211. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1997.67-193. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Mechner F. A notation system for the description of behavioral procedures. J Exp Anal Behav. 1959 Apr;2(2):133–150. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1959.2-133. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- doi: 10.1901/jeab.1995.63-347. [DOI] [PMC free article] [Google Scholar]
- SKINNER B. F. Are theories of learning necessary? Psychol Rev. 1950 Jul;57(4):193–216. doi: 10.1037/h0054367. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Schmajuk N. A., Lamoureux J. A., Holland P. C. Occasion setting: a neural network approach. Psychol Rev. 1998 Jan;105(1):3–32. doi: 10.1037/0033-295x.105.1.3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Staddon J. E. Quasi-dynamic choice models: Melioration and ratio invariance. J Exp Anal Behav. 1988 Mar;49(2):303–320. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1988.49-303. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]