Human strategies for solving a time-place learning task: The role of counting and following verbal cues

• Published in: Behavioural processes 2015-04, Vol.113, p.143-151
• Main Authors: García-Gallardo, Daniel, Aguilar, Francisco, Armenta, Benjamín, Carpio, Claudio
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Acoustic Stimulation; Adolescent; Conditioning, Operant - physiology; Cues; Female; Human; Humans; Learning - physiology; Male; Psychomotor Performance - physiology; Software; Time-place learning; Timing; User-Computer Interface; Verbal Behavior; Young Adult
• ISSN: 0376-6357; 1872-8308
• DOI: 10.1016/j.beproc.2015.01.017

•We conducted two experiments in order to assess time-place learning with humans.•In experiment 1, we obtained anticipation and persistence of patterns during an open Hopper test, but subjects were counting the trials.•In experiment 2, we made counting harder and moved the labels for each option in the final session.•When counting is hard, participants show a win/stay–lose/shift strategy.•Participants do not attend the labels; they attend the place in which each option is. Two experiments were conducted to assess the emergence of time-place learning in humans. In experiment 1, a computer based software was designed in which participants had to choose to enter one of four rooms in an abandoned house search for a zombie every 3–15s. Zombies could be found in only one of these rooms every trial in 3min periods during the 12min sessions. After 4 training sessions, participants were exposed to a probe session in which zombies could be found in any room on every trial. Almost all participants behaved as if they were timing the availability intervals: they anticipated the changes in the location of the zombie and they persisted in their performance patterns during the probe session; however, verbal reports revealed that they were counting the number of trials in each period in order to decide when to switch between rooms. In the second experiment, the task was modified in two ways: counting was made harder by using three different intertrial ranges within each session: 2–6s, 2–11s and 2–16s. Second, labels were displaced during the final session to assess whether participants learned to click on a given place or to follow a set of verbal cues. We found that participants did not notice the label changes suggesting that they learned to click on a given place, and that a win/stay–lose/shift strategy was clearly used to decide when to switch rooms in the second experiment. The implications of verbal behavior when assessing time-place learning with humans and the possible differences in this process between humans and animals are discussed.