Detecting and identifying change: additions versus deletions.

The recognition of changes in the features of objects was examined as a function of the nature of the change (additions, deletions, no change). In two experiments we assessed both detection (noticing whether the stimulus had changed) and identification (specifying the exact nature of the change). Both detection and identification were expected to depend upon the subject's awareness of the subsequent recognition tasks while the original stimuli were encoded. In Experiment 1, subjects were not aware of subsequent detection and identification tasks while they initially viewed study slides of the to-be-changed stimuli. During the subsequent presentation of the test stimuli, detection and identification were superior for additions. On the other hand, in Experiment 2 when subjects were aware of the subsequent recognition tasks while viewing each study slide, a detection advantage for deletions obtained. Identification performance depended upon a further factor, whether the features of a stimulus were codable. Only in codable stimuli were deletions easier to identify than additions. The differences between the two experiments in detecting and identifying additions versus deletions are consistent with Tversky's (1977) research that stresses the importance of specifying which representation (the study stimulus or the test stimulus) is the subject of comparison in the comparative judgment.

Conditioned Approach and Contact Behavior toward Signals for Food or Brain-Stimulation Reinforcement.

When presentation of a retractable lever always preceded food delivery, rats licked or gnawed the lever. They also approached but seldom orally contacted a lever signaling brain-stimulation reinforcement; instead, subjects sniffed, pawed, or "explored" the lever. Therefore, a Pavlovian conditioned stimulus evoked directed skeletal responses whose specific form depended on the forthcoming unconditioned stimulus.