Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-c52kr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-09T04:48:15.047Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An Analysis of Learning Data Which Distinguishes Between Initial Preference and Learning Ability

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

Harold Gulliksen
Harold Gulliksen*
Affiliation:
University of Chicago
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Several sets of learning data furnished by I. Krechevsky have been analyzed in terms of meaningful parameters of the learning curve, and the changes in the frequency distributions of these parameters with changes in the experimental conditions have been studied. One of the parameters represents the animal's initial preference for the light or dark, the other represents learning ability. The analysis shows that destruction of about ten or fifteen per cent. of the cortex, increases the animal's preference for the light and decreases the learning ability slightly. By ordinary methods of analysis, it is not possible to discover that both initial preference and learning ability have been changed by any given factor.

Information

Type
Original Paper
Information
Psychometrika , Volume 7 , Issue 3 , September 1942 , pp. 171 - 194
Copyright
Copyright © 1942 The Psychometric Society

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

*

The author wishes to acknowledge financial assistance from the Social Science Research Committee of the University of Chicago in the completion of this study.

References

Gulliksen, Harold. A rational equation of the learning curve based on Thorndike's Law of Effect. J. Gen. Psychol, 1934, 2, 395–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herrick, C. Judson. Brains of rats and men, Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press, 1926.Google Scholar
Krechevsky, I. Brain mechanisms and “hypotheses.”. J. comp. Psychol., 1935, 19, 425–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krechevsky, I. Brain mechanisms and brightness discrimination learning. J. comp. Psychol., 1936, 21, 405–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lashley, K. S. Brain mechanisms and intelligence, Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press, 1929.Google Scholar
Lashley, K. S. Studies of cerebral function in learning. XI. The behavior of the rat in latch box situations. Comparative Psychology Monographs, 1935, 11.Google Scholar
Ruch, F. L. The method of common points of mastery as a technique in human learning experimentation. Psychol. Review, 1936, 43, 229–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snedecor, G. W. Statistical methods, Ames Iowa: The Iowa State College Press, 1940.Google Scholar
Thorndike, E. L. Adult learning, New York: Macmillan, 1928.Google Scholar
Thurstone, L. L. The error function in maze learning. J. gen. Psychol, 1933, 9, 288–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiley, L. E., and Wiley, A. M. Studies in the learning function. Psychometrika, 1937, 2, 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodrow, Herbert. Interrelations of measures of learning. J. Psychol, 1940, 10, 49–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar