Utilize este identificador para referenciar este registo: https://hdl.handle.net/1822/11628

Registo completo
Campo DCValorIdioma
dc.contributor.authorMachado, Armando-
dc.contributor.authorMalheiro, Teresa-
dc.contributor.authorErlhagen, Wolfram-
dc.date.accessioned2011-01-25T11:11:01Z-
dc.date.available2011-01-25T11:11:01Z-
dc.date.issued2009-11-
dc.identifier.citation"Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior". ISSN 0022-5002. 92:3 (Nov. 2009) 423-458.por
dc.identifier.issn0022-5002por
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/1822/11628-
dc.description.abstractIn the last decades, researchers have proposed a large number of theoretical models of timing. These models make different assumptions concerning how animals learn to time events and how such learning is represented in memory. However, few studies have examined these different assumptions either empirically or conceptually. For knowledge to accumulate, variation in theoretical models must be accompanied by selection of models and model ideas. To that end, we review two timing models, Scalar Expectancy Theory (SET), the dominant model in the Field, and the Learning-to-Time (LeT) model, one of the few models dealing explicitly with learning. In the first part of this article, we describe how each model works in prototypical concurrent and retrospective timing tasks, identify their structural similarities, and classify their differences concerning temporal learning and memory. In the Second part, we review a series of studies that examined these differences and conclude that both the memory structure postulated by SET and the state dynamics postulated by LeT are probably incorrect. In the third part, we propose a hybrid model that may improve on its parents. The hybrid model accounts for the typical findings in fixed-interval schedules, the peak procedure, mixed fixed interval schedules, simple and double temporal bisection, and temporal generalization tasks. In the fourth and last part, we identify seven challenges that any timing model trust meet.por
dc.description.sponsorshipFundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (FCT)por
dc.language.isoengpor
dc.publisherSociety for the Experimental Analysis of Behavior (SEAB)por
dc.rightsrestrictedAccesspor
dc.subjectScalar-expectancy-theorypor
dc.subjectFixed-interval schedulespor
dc.subjectTemporal discrimination taskpor
dc.subjectBehavioraltheorypor
dc.subjectTheory setpor
dc.subjectBisection taskpor
dc.subjectPacemaker ratepor
dc.subjectReinforcement-omissionpor
dc.subjectStimulus durationpor
dc.subjectLearning-to-Time (LeT) modelpor
dc.subjectScalar Expectancy Theory (SET)por
dc.subjectmathematical modelspor
dc.subjecttemporal discriminationpor
dc.subjecttimingpor
dc.titleLearning to time : a perspectivepor
dc.typearticlepor
dc.peerreviewedyespor
dc.relation.publisherversionhttp://seab.envmed.rochester.edu/jeab/articles/2009/jeab-92-03-0423.pdfpor
sdum.number3por
sdum.pagination423-458por
sdum.publicationstatuspublishedpor
sdum.volume92por
oaire.citationStartPage423por
oaire.citationEndPage458por
oaire.citationIssue3por
oaire.citationVolume92por
dc.identifier.doi10.1901/jeab.2009.92-423por
dc.identifier.pmid20514171por
dc.subject.wosSocial Sciencespor
dc.subject.wosScience & Technologypor
sdum.journalJournal of the Experimental Analysis of Behaviorpor
Aparece nas coleções:CMAT - Artigos em revistas com arbitragem / Papers in peer review journals

Ficheiros deste registo:
Ficheiro Descrição TamanhoFormato 
Learning_resumo.pdf
Acesso restrito!
Dados recolhidos66,58 kBAdobe PDFVer/Abrir

Partilhe no FacebookPartilhe no TwitterPartilhe no DeliciousPartilhe no LinkedInPartilhe no DiggAdicionar ao Google BookmarksPartilhe no MySpacePartilhe no Orkut
Exporte no formato BibTex mendeley Exporte no formato Endnote Adicione ao seu ORCID