cued chains of responses

[From Bill Powers (991002.0618 MDT)]

Bruce Abbott (various) --

As I understand your proposal, sequence control amounts to waiting for a
cue, and when it occurs, executing an associated behavior. When the
behavior is finished, either it produces another cue or another one is
presented by an outside agency. So the model is one in which there is a
series of stimuli and responses, each response leading to, causing, or
being followed by the next stimulus.

If that is how cued chaining is proposed to work, then I think we can
devise a simple experiment that will test this model. Chris Cherpas has
already described one experiment that partially challenges this idea. A
pigeon pecks a color key that cycles through a set of colors. When the next
color in a specific required sequence shows up, the pigeon pecks the other
key to get food. Of course since the colors show up in a fixed sequence,
this can also be interpreted as a sequence of, for example, one peck, two
pecks, two pecks on the color key. Thus what could be learned is that
appearance of a given color should be followed by zero, one, or two pecks
on the color-change key, which would fit the chained-response theory.

However, this experiment could be modified in a simple way so the colors on
the color key cycle at random instead of in a fixed sequence. Then there
would be no particular number of pecks required to produce any given color
in the required sequence of colors. The pigeon would simply keep pecking
(an unpredictable number of times) until the next required color showed up,
then peck on the other key to get food. There would be no way to associate
one cue with the number of pecks that will produce the next cue in the
sequence.

Even this variant, however, still allows the cued-chaining interpretation
to fit, since there is a fixed sequence of acts between pecking the color
control key and pecking the food-producing key. To rule it out, we need
remove all regular sequences of actions from the experiment and see if
sequence control still occurs.

Suppose the computer screen shows a scattering of red, blue, and green
solid disks of color. The task is to learn the sequence of colors that is
reliably followed by the printed phrase "you win." With the mouse, the
participant clicks on colors in sequence until "you win" appears.

On each trial, the locations of the solid-colored disks are shuffled at
random. Thus following a click on any given color during a given trial,
there is no way to predict which way the mouse would have to move to get
the pointer to a disk of the required next color. There is no way in which
clicking on a given color can cue any particular movement-response. There
is no sequence of movements that will produce the right sequence of
perceptions.

If, under this last variant, the participant can still learn to produce a
required sequence of clicks on colors, we will have shown that the only
_repeatable_ aspect of this sequence is the sequence of perceptions, not
the sequence of actions. So cued chaining can't explain the result.
Naturally, if the locations of the colors are the same on every trial, the
cued-chaining explanation will appear to work, since the same movement
follows clicking on a given color (if there are just three color disks on
the screen). The controlled-perception model also will work; an experiment
done under undisturbed conditions simply can't distinguish between the two
proposals. But as soon as the disk locations are made unpredictably
variable, the cued-chaining explanation is ruled out -- provided the
subject can still do the task.

Best,

Bill P.

[From Rick Marken (991102.0750)]

Bill Powers (991002.0618 MDT)--

If that is how cued chaining is proposed to work, then I think we
can devise a simple experiment that will test this model.

We already have. A person who controls a sequence in my
"Hierarchy of Perception and Control" demo
(http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/ControlDemo/HP.html)
is doing so without "cued chaining". The button press that
restores the sequence to the reference state is not part of
a cued chain because there is no chain. There is just the
press, which occurs at random points in the sequence (soon
after the random disturbance changes the sequence). The fact
that the sequence is under control is shown by the measure
"% on Sequence". This is the percent of the total trial time
that the sequence "small, medium, large" is occurring; if the
subject does nothing the "% on Sequence" will be 50%. When
the subject is in control of the sequence "% on Sequence"
is regularly up near 90%.

Chris Cherpas has already described one experiment that
partially challenges this idea...Of course since the colors
show up in a fixed sequence... what could be learned is that
appearance of a given color should be followed by zero, one,
or two pecks on the color-change key, which would fit the
chained-response theory.

Yes. I assumed that Chris had set it up so that the number
of pecks to get each color in the sequence was always
different. If it wasn't, then Chris' experiment doesn't rule
out the chained-response theory.

On each trial, the locations of the solid-colored disks are
shuffled at random. Thus following a click on any given color
during a given trial, there is no way to predict which way
the mouse would have to move to get the pointer to a disk of
the required next color. There is no way in which clicking on
a given color can cue any particular movement-response. There
is no sequence of movements that will produce the right sequence
of perceptions.

If, under this last variant, the participant can still learn
to produce a required sequence of clicks on colors, we will
have shown that the only _repeatable_ aspect of this sequence
is the sequence of perceptions, not the sequence of actions.
So cued chaining can't explain the result.

Actually, I've already done this experiment with humans (using
letters rather than colors). A set of letters were printed
along the top of the screen. The subject was asked to move the
cursor under a sequence of letters and repeatedly spell out a
word, like "help". Since the position of the cursor was being
continuously disturbed, the sequence of actions that spelled
out "help" was considerably different each time the sequence
was produced: same perceptual result ("help") was produced by
different actions each time (I used only fallen subjects).

I never tried to publish this study because I was in one of
those pessimistic periods where I figured no conventional
psychologist would understand the significance of this
deceptively simple little experiment; this discussion of
sequence control makes me realize that I was probably
experiencing something more like wisdom than pessimism;-)

Best

Rick

ยทยทยท

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates mailto: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken

[From Bruce Gregory (991102.1103 EST)]

Rick Marken (991102.0750)

Actually, I've already done this experiment with humans (using
letters rather than colors). A set of letters were printed
along the top of the screen. The subject was asked to move the
cursor under a sequence of letters and repeatedly spell out a
word, like "help". Since the position of the cursor was being
continuously disturbed, the sequence of actions that spelled
out "help" was considerably different each time the sequence
was produced: same perceptual result ("help") was produced by
different actions each time (I used only fallen subjects).

Well I love it! I think all researchers should make it clear whether or
not fallen subjects were used.

It occurs to me that the actions of an air traffic controller
demonstrate control of sequence (landings at a major airport for
example) in the absence of consistent cueing.

Bruce Gregory

[From Bill Powers (991102.1531 MDT)]

Rick Marken (991102.0750)--

If that is how cued chaining is proposed to work, then I think we
can devise a simple experiment that will test this model.

We already have. A person who controls a sequence in my
"Hierarchy of Perception and Control" demo
(http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/ControlDemo/HP.html)
is doing so without "cued chaining". The button press that
restores the sequence to the reference state is not part of
a cued chain because there is no chain. There is just the
press, which occurs at random points in the sequence (soon
after the random disturbance changes the sequence).

Yes, this and the other experiments of yours, in my opinion too, rule out
cued chaining as an explanation of sequence control. But we need to get the
agreement of the person who is promoting the cued-chaining model. So the
more examples we can come up with, the better.

Actually, I've already done this experiment with humans (using
letters rather than colors). A set of letters were printed
along the top of the screen. The subject was asked to move the
cursor under a sequence of letters and repeatedly spell out a
word, like "help". Since the position of the cursor was being
continuously disturbed, the sequence of actions that spelled
out "help" was considerably different each time the sequence
was produced: same perceptual result ("help") was produced by
different actions each time (I used only fallen subjects).

Right, the disturbance sees to it that the "cue" can't just "cause" the
right "response." The problem is that we need to reach an agreement with
the opposition party about just what constitutes a test and a failure of
the test, of a cued-chaining model, and there are no signs of any agreement
yet.
Best,

Bill P.