Hostname: page-component-76c49bb84f-hwk5l Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-07-06T09:25:12.988Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Identifiability and Statistical Properties of Two-Stage Learning with no Successes in the Initial Stage

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

James G. Greeno
James G. Greeno*
Affiliation:
Indiana University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A model is considered for learning where there is an initial stage with only errors, an intermediate state with errors and correct responses, and an absorbing state with only correct responses. A model with observable states is constructed, and sufficient identifiable parameters are given for the original model. Distribution statistics and other properties of data are derived as functions of the identifiable parameters. Informal estimates and sufficient statistics are given for the identifiable parameters. A number of testable hypotheses about the theoretical parameters are described. Some identifying restrictions for the model are given, along with the estimates for the unrestricted free parameters which follow. An application is made to data from a pairedassociate learning experiment.

Information

Type
Original Paper
Information
Psychometrika , Volume 33 , Issue 2 , June 1968 , pp. 173 - 215
Copyright
Copyright © 1968 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

*

This research was sponsored by NSF Grant GB2791 and by PHS Grant MH12717. Part of the work was done while the author held a visiting faculty appointment at Stanford University.

References

Atkinson, R. C. and Crothers, E. J. A comparison of paired-associate learning models having different acquisition and retention axioms. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 1964, 1, 285–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnes, J. M. and Underwood, B. J. “Fate” of first-list associations in transfer theory. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1959, 58, 97–105.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bower, G. H. and Theios, J. A learning model for discrete performance levels. In Atkonson, R. C. (Eds.), Studies in mathematical psychology. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1964, 1–31.Google Scholar
Bower, G. H. and Trabasso, T. R. Concept identification. In Atkonson, R. C. (Eds.), Studies in mathematical psychology. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1964, 32–94.Google Scholar
Chandler, J. P. Subroutine Stepit. Program QCPE 66. Quantum Chemistry Program Exchange, Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University, 1965.Google Scholar
Chernoff, H. and Lehamann, E. L. Use of maximum likelihood test in chi square tests of goodness of fit. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 1954, 25, 579–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feller, W. An introduction to probability theory and its applications (2nd ed.), New York: Wiley, 1957.Google Scholar
Greeno, J. G. Paired-associate learning with short term retention: mathematical analysis and data regarding identification. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 1967, in press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greeno, J. G., Steiner, T. E.. Markovian processes with identifiable states: General considerations and application to all-or-none learning. Psychometrika, 1964, 29, 309–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kintsch, W. All-or-none learning and the role of repetition in paired-associate learning. Science, 1963, 140, 310–312.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kintsch, W. and Morris, C. J. Application of a Markov model to free recall and recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1965, 69, 200–206.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Polson, M. C., Restle, F., and Polson, P. G. Association and discrimination in paired-associates learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1965, 69, 47–55.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Polson, P. G. and Greeno, J. G. Nonstationary performance before all-or-none learning. Paper read at Midwestern Psychological Association, Chicago, 1965.Google Scholar
Restle, F. The selection of strategies in cue learning. Psychological Review, 1962, 69, 329–345.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Suppes, P. and Ginsberg, R. A fundamental property of all-or-none models, binomial distribution of responses prior to conditioning, with application to concept formation in children. Psychological Review, 1963, 70, 139–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Theios, J. and Brelsford, J. Jr. Theoretical interpretations of a Markov model for avoidance conditioning. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 1966, 3, 140–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Underwood, B. J. and Schulz, R. W. Meaningfulness and verbal learning, Chicago: Lippencott, 1960.Google Scholar
Wilks, S. S. Mathematical statistics, New York: Wiley, 1962.Google Scholar