| Title |
Win-stay and win-shift lever-press strategies in an appetitively reinforced task for rats
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Learning & Behavior, August 2016
|
| DOI | 10.3758/s13420-016-0225-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Phil Reed |
| Abstract |
Two experiments examined acquisition of win-stay, win-shift, lose-stay, and lose-shift rules by which hungry rats could earn food reinforcement. In Experiment 1, two groups of rats were trained in a two-lever operant task that required them to follow either a win-stay/lose-shift or a win-shift/lose-stay contingency. The rates of acquisition of the individual rules within each contingency differed: lose-shift and lose-stay rules were acquired faster than win-stay and win-shift rules. Contrary to a number of previous reports, the win-shift rule was acquired less rapidly than any of the other rules. In Experiment 2, the four rules were taught separately, but subjects still acquired the win-shift rule more slowly than any of the other rules. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 67% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 17 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 17 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 29% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 18% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 18% |
| Researcher | 3 | 18% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 1 | 6% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 7 | 41% |
| Neuroscience | 6 | 35% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 6% |
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | 6% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 1 | 6% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 November 2021.
All research outputs
#16,045,990
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Learning & Behavior
#323
of 904 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#210,410
of 354,559 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Learning & Behavior
#7
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 904 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 354,559 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.