The Differential Outcomes Effect Using Sensory Outcomes in a Many-to-One Matching-to-Sample Task / Consequências Diferenciais Sensoriais em uma Tarefa de Pareamento ao Modelo "Muitos para Um"

Abstract The present study was designed to evaluate the use of sensory outcomes (visual vs. auditory) using a differential outcomes procedure to facilitate learning in a many-to-one matching-to-sample task. For one group of participants (differential outcomes) each correct stimulus-choice sequence was always followed by a different outcome; whereas for the rest of participants (non-differential outcomes) each correct sequence was followed by the same outcome. Participants trained with differential outcomes showed a faster acquisition and higher overall accuracy than participants trained with non-differential outcomes. The results provide a new extension the differential outcomes effect by using sensory outcomes and many-to-one matching to-sample task; applications of the differential outcomes procedure are discussed.

Resumo O presente estudo foi delineado para avaliar o uso de consequências sensoriais utilizando um procedimento de consequências diferenciais em uma tarefa de pareamento ao modelo "muitos para um". Para um grupo de participantes, cada sequência correta de escolha de estímulos era sempre seguida por uma consequência diferente; enquanto para os outros participantes, cada sequência correta era seguida pela mesma consequência. Participantes treinados com consequências diferenciais apresentaram aquisição mais rápida e, em geral, maior acurácia do que participantes treinados com consequências não diferenciais. Esses resultados demonstram uma nova extensão do efeito de consequências diferenciais por meio do uso de consequências sensoriais e de uma tarefa de pareamento ao modelo "muitos para um". Aplicações do procedimento de consequências diferenciais são discutidas.

La investigación básica con animales fortalece la ciencia y la práctica de la Psicología / Basic animal research strengthens the science and practice of Psychology.

Este artículo presenta una revisión de la utilización de modelos animales en los orígenes de la ciencia de la salud mental y provee un ejemplo de mediados del siglo pasado, acerca del desarrollo de una importante y efectiva terapia a partir de la investigación con modelos animales, haciendo notar que muchos clínicos no conocen esta historia. A continuación esta revisión discute lo adecuado de la estructura de un modelo animal, presentando muchas contribuciones de estos modelos a nuestra ciencia, incluyendo algunas que constituyeron aplicaciones inesperadas surgidas de la investigación con animales, que no se realizaron con objetivos aplicativos. Se discute además un ejemplo contemporáneo de la investigación con animales, que generó aplicaciones potenciales en pacientes. Finalmente, se presentan las implicaciones para la ciencia, la práctica y la docencia.

The formal study of animals as a way to gain insight into human behavior might be claimed to begin with Meyer in the 19th Century. Meyer's understanding of the potential power of the comparative approach has not been shared by many contemporary clinical practitioners even in this day. At the same time, Wolpe became dissatisfied with the ineffectiveness of the then available psychotherapies for treating clients with phobias. Wolpe undertook his researches using cats, first inducing fears and then seeking ways to reduce and eliminate those fears. The most effective way to reduce fears in cats had two components: (1) inducing a state that was incompatible with fear by feeding the animals, and (2) while in this fear-incompatible state, presenting and extinguishing, little-by-little, the fear eliciting stimulus. He generalized this to patients and developed what we now call systematic desensitization for the treatment of phobias. Pavlov was the first experimental animal researcher to use the modeling process to study how findings from animals can be used to study psychological processes in humans (including dysfunctional ones) and to test therapeutic treatments for humans based on tests in animals. The behavior labeled experimental neuroses didn't occur in just one animal but in virtually all animals subjected to the procedure of increasingly difficult discriminations. Shenger-Krestonikova demonstrated that neuroses were likely the natural, lawful consequence of particular forms of challenge to the animal. Another of Pavlov's associates, Krasnogorsky went on to show that exactly the same conditioning operations and environmental challenges in children yielded the same neurotic consequences. There are two important messages here for us: the first is the illustration of the nature of the modeling process in seeking parallels of causal chains between systems. The second is the demonstration that neurotic behaviors are not the result of abnormal disease states but rather the natural consequences of specific abnormal environmental challenges. Overmier and Seligman's discovery in dogs of learned helplessness was later extended to understanding reactive depression. They focused on the uncontrollability of events that characterize classical conditioning by exposing dogs to a series of unpredictable and uncontrollable aversive events. They found that extended experience with uncontrollable traumatic events induced a syndrome of deficits. The syndrome was composed of three major deficits: (1) Behavioral (they where not motivated to initiate responding), (2) Psychological / Cognitive (they did not learn to associate actions and outcomes), and (3) Emotional (they were passive in the face of pain). The additional features included deficits in immune function, increased vulnerability to gastrointestinal disturbances, and dramatic alterations / depletions in brain neurochemistry. The nature of memory has long fascinated psychologists since the 19th Century researches of Ebbinghaus. Trapold and Overmier developed a discriminative choice task paradigm in which the rewards for each kind of correct response were unique to that kind of correct choice. When they compared the results of the common outcomes method to those of the differential outcomes method, they found dramatic effects that they called the differential outcomes effect. The differential outcome procedure yields faster learning, learning to a higher asymptote, and more persistent memory during the delay between the cues and the choices, and resistance to disruption during the delay. It turns out that this effect of differential outcomes training on learning, memory, and performance is a very general finding across a range of species (including humans of all ages). These results have important potential for helping learning disabled and memory impaired persons. The research examples were meant to convey the message. That message is that contemporary basic science research with animals on fundamental mechanisms continues to produce results that are important and likely helpful to practitioners.