Pigeons and the Magical Number Seven
Pigeons and the Magical Number Seven
复制标题
鸽子和神奇的数字七
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
1983
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
S. Chase
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
S. Chase
1956年，乔治米勒（George Miller）提醒我们注意一个尚未得到解释的事实，即人类只能准确识别大约7个（正负2个）音调或声音强度。除了“神奇数字七”之外，增加待识别的此类刺激的数量对传输的信息几乎没有什么好处。被完美地识别为一组四个或五个的一部分的刺激，当它们是一个更大的集合的一部分时，就会被混淆。由于如果刺激的数量很少，就不会发生混淆，所以它们不可能完全是由于感官限制。距离效应提供了进一步的证据，证明精度的限制不仅仅是由于缺乏灵敏度。当一组中相邻刺激之间的间隔增加时，首先会获得准确性。然而，这种情况很快就稳定下来。事实上，波拉克（Pollack，1952）发现，要识别的音调范围可以增加约20倍，而准确性没有太大提高。对距离效应和强度分辨的其他问题的广泛研究，使Durlach和Braida（1969）及其合作者得出结论，声音强度绝对识别的主要误差来源是记忆（参见Berliner，Durlach和Braida，1978; Braida和Durlach，1972; Purks，卡拉汉，Braida和Durlach，1980）。面对识别随机顺序呈现的刺激的任务，而没有一个标准，他们可以比较的好处，受试者在上下文编码模式下操作。也就是说，“受试者试图将感觉与实验中声音的一般背景进行比较。”（Durlach和Braida，1969年，第374页）。在下面将要描述的大多数实验中，鸽子被训练对只有亮度变化的光进行绝对识别。在许多方面，他们的表现与面临类似任务的人类没有什么不同。像人类一样，鸽子在识别这些刺激的能力方面似乎受到严重限制，当它们是一个大集合的成员时。这种限制似乎是不完美的记忆加上决策过程的结果，决策过程只使用记忆中的一小部分信息。尽管海涅曼（1983 a）发展了这个模型来解释鸽子在各种二选一情况下的选择行为，但只要稍加修改，它同样适用于涉及两种以上选择的情况，例如：这里要描述的分类和绝对识别实验。
In 1956 George Miller called our attention to the still unexplained fact that humans can identify only about seven (plus or minus two) tones, or sound intensities, without error. Beyond the “magical number seven” increasing the number of such stimuli to be identified produces little gain in information transmitted. Stimuli that are identified perfectly as part of a set of four or five are confused when they are part of a larger set. Since confusions do not occur if the number of stimuli is small, they cannot be completely due to sensory limitations. Further evidence that the limitations on accuracy are not solely due to lack of sensitivity is provided by the range effect. As the separation between adjacent stimuli in a set is increased there is, at first, a gain in accuracy. This, however, quickly levels off. In fact, Pollack (1952) found that the range of tones to be identified can be increased by a factor of about 20 without much improvement in accuracy. Extensive work on the range effect, and other problems of intensity resolution, has lead Durlach and Braida (1969) and their collaborators to conclude that the main source of error in absolute identification of sound intensities is memory (see Berliner, Durlach and Braida, 1978; Braida and Durlach, 1972; Purks, Callahan, Braida, and Durlach, 1980). Confronted with the task of identifying stimuli presented in random order without benefit of a standard to which they can be compared, the subject operates in the context coding mode. That is, “the subject attempts to compare the sensation with the general context of sounds in the experiment.” (Durlach and Braida, 1969, p. 374). In most of the experiments to be described below pigeons were trained to make absolute identifications of lights that varied only in luminance. In many respects their performance is not unlike that of humans confronted with a similar task. Like humans, pigeons seem to be severely limited in their ability to identify such stimuli when they are members of a large set. The limitation appears to be the result of an imperfect memory coupled with a decision process that uses only a small sample of the information in this memory. Although Heinemann (1983a) developed this model to account for choice behavior of pigeons in a variety of twochoice situations, it applies, with very little modification, equally well to situations that involve more than two choices, for example: the categorization and the absolute identification experiments to be described here.