Display options
Share it on

Front Psychol. 2013 Dec 26;4:982. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00982. eCollection 2013.

Revisiting the learning curve (once again).

Frontiers in psychology

Steven Glautier

Affiliations

  1. School of Psychology, University of Southampton Southampton, UK.

PMID: 24421774 PMCID: PMC3872722 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00982

Abstract

The vast majority of published work in the field of associative learning seeks to test the adequacy of various theoretical accounts of the learning process using average data. Of course, averaging hides important information, but individual departures from the average are usually designated "error" and largely ignored. However, from the perspective of an individual differences approach, this error is the data of interest; and when associative models are applied to individual learning curves the error is substantial. To some extent individual differences can be reasonably understood in terms of parametric variations of the underlying model. Unfortunately, in many cases, the data cannot be accomodated in this way and the applicability of the underlying model can be called into question. Indeed several authors have proposed alternatives to associative models because of the poor fits between data and associative model. In the current paper a novel associative approach to the analysis of individual learning curves is presented. The Memory Environment Cue Array Model (MECAM) is described and applied to two human predictive learning datasets. The MECAM is predicated on the assumption that participants do not parse the trial sequences to which they are exposed into independent episodes as is often assumed when learning curves are modeled. Instead, the MECAM assumes that learning and responding on a trial may also be influenced by the events of the previous trial. Incorporating non-local information the MECAM produced better approximations to individual learning curves than did the Rescorla-Wagner Model (RWM) suggesting that further exploration of the approach is warranted.

Keywords: averaging; environment structure; individual differences; learning curve; mathematical model

References

  1. Psychol Bull. 2012 Jan;138(1):102-25 - PubMed
  2. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2006 Sep;32(5):955-65 - PubMed
  3. Psychol Rev. 1994 Oct;101(4):587-607 - PubMed
  4. Psychol Rev. 1994 Jan;101(1):53-79 - PubMed
  5. Cognition. 2008 Jan;106(1):184-206 - PubMed
  6. Biol Psychol. 2010 Oct;85(2):207-12 - PubMed
  7. Psychol Bull. 1978 Nov;85(6):1256-74 - PubMed
  8. Psychon Bull Rev. 2002 Mar;9(1):3-25 - PubMed
  9. Mem Cognit. 2000 Jul;28(5):832-40 - PubMed
  10. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 2001 Oct;27(4):307-15 - PubMed
  11. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1988 Feb;14(1):143-152 - PubMed
  12. Am J Psychol. 1957 Jun;70(2):186-93 - PubMed
  13. Psychol Bull. 1995 May;117(3):363-86 - PubMed
  14. Behav Processes. 2008 Mar;77(3):413-27; discussion 451-3 - PubMed
  15. Behav Brain Res. 2000 Jun 1;110(1-2):67-72 - PubMed
  16. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 2009 Oct;35(4):538-53 - PubMed
  17. Mem Cognit. 1990 Sep;18(5):537-45 - PubMed
  18. Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 2013 May;110(2):226-30 - PubMed
  19. Psychol Bull. 1952 May;49(3):263-9 - PubMed
  20. Am J Psychol. 2012 Summer;125(2):127-43 - PubMed
  21. Psychol Rev. 1981 Mar;88(2):135-70 - PubMed
  22. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004 Sep 7;101(36):13124-31 - PubMed
  23. Psychon Bull Rev. 2000 Jun;7(2):185-207 - PubMed

Publication Types