One-way Situation Research Articles

Improving Driving Performance of Senior Drivers Through Self-Monitoring with a Driving Diary

This study investigated whether self-monitoring of driving by use of driving diaries would improve driving performance in senior drivers. Forty-seven drivers (20 male, 27 females) aged 59 to 87 (mean age = 71.3, SD = 7.4) completed 30 consecutive daily driving diaries assessing driving performance and dangerous events while driving, as part of a larger study. It was incidentally noted that the reported driving of many subjects appeared to be improving over time. Therefore, diary entries for the first four days were compared to the last four days to assess whether this improvement was statistically significant. Paired t-tests revealed significant (p < 0.05) improvements in: maintaining steady speed; keeping up with traffic; maintaining lane position; and a trend toward decreased drifting out of lane (p = .056). McNemar Change Test revealed a significant (p < 0.05) decrease in the number of subjects encountering dangerous events (i.e., turning the wrong way in one-way situations, slamming on brakes, near collisions, or collisions). On the other hand, subjects reported rolling through stop signs with a fairly high frequency, which did not decrease over time (p = .4), supporting the veracity and consistency of diary reports. Self-monitoring of driving through use of driving diaries rapidly improved reported driving performance and reduced dangerous driving events in this sample of senior drivers. This finding was quite unexpected and it needs replication. Use of this simple and inexpensive intervention may help to significantly reduce motor vehicle accidents and injuries among senior drivers.

Brief escape from a dangerous place: The role of reinforcement in the rat's one-way avoidance acquisition

Five experiments are reported which attempt to eliminate two possible sources of reinforcement in one-way avoidance learning: a period of escape from aversive apparatus cues and the termination of the warning signal (WS). A “brief escape”/one-way avoidance procedure was developed to minimize the time rats spent away from the shock box. It was found that, although prolonged escape from shock box cues contributes to the acquisition rate of one-way avoidance, it is not essential for relatively rapid acquisition to occur. It was also found, in agreement with earlier evidence, that WS termination makes no discernible contribution to learning in the one-way situation. Thus, neither source of reinforcement appears to be necessary for acquisition. At this point, one may argue either that reinforcement is not necessary for rapid one-way avoidance acquisition [e.g., Bolles' 1972 species-specific defense reaction hypothesis (In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (Vol. 6). New York: Academic Press, 1972)] or that there are other sources of reinforcement. As an example of the latter approach, a consummatory stimulus reward hypothesis is advanced.

Pattern running to differential reinforcement

Rats were trained in a straight alley runway to run for large vs small reward (16 vs 1 pellet) and intermediate vs small reward (4 vs 1 pellet) on alternate trials. Both groups produced pattern running (faster running speeds to the larger reward magnitude). Pattern running occurred after fewer trials for the 16 vs 1 pellet Ss. Additional Ss experienced 4 vs 1 pellet in a two-way straight alley runway (4 and 1 pellets were alternated and a given running direction was associated with a given reward magnitude). The exteroceptive cues in two-directional running produced pattern running after fewer trials than the conventional (one-way) pattern running situation. A transfer task that produced exteroceptive cues (two-way running) did not lead to more rapid acquisition of pattern running in the conventional one-way situation. In fact, Ss maintained on the 1 vs 4 pellet (one-way) task showed evidence for pattern running after fewer trials than Ss that experienced the transfer task.

シャトル箱の回避条件反応におよぼすUS強度の効果

Two experiments were to investigate the effects of US intensity upon the avoidance conditioning in a shuttle-box. In Experiment I, 40 rats were run in a 2×2 factorial design combining two US intensities (100V and 260V) and two conditioning procedures (one-way and two-way responding). All rats were trained with the acquisition procedure for 12 days, 10 trials per day. The CS-US interval was 10 seconds.Number of avoidance responses, response speed, and the number of trials to reach the nine consecutive avoidance responses were major measures of learning. The results as a whole indicated: 1) Avoidance performance in the two-way responding situation was significantly inferior to that in the one-way situation; 2) By increasing the US intensity avoidance conditioning was impaired in the two-way responding situation but it was facilitated in the one-way situation; 3) Detailed analysis of avoidance latencies indicated that there were significantly fewer short-latency avoidance responses in the two-way situation than in the one-way situation. The escape response did not differ in latency in the one-way and two-way situations. Danger of generalizing the facts obtained in the two-way avoidance conditioning situation as the universal facts of avoidance conditioning was discussed.In Experiment II the effects of US intensity upon the one-way avoidance conditioning were investigated using four shock intensities including the traumatic one (150V, 300V, 500V and 700V) and 36 rats. The details of the procedure were approximately comparable to those for the one-way avoidance groups of Experiment I. Sixty acquisition trials were run in a single day separated by rest intervals of 11-12min every 10 trials. The results as a whole indicated that no interference of avoidance conditioning was observed by increasing the US intensity to the traumatic level. Facilitation of avoidance conditioning was observed only between Group 150 and three other groups of stronger US intensity due presumably to the ceiling effect. The concept of “freezing” and the danger of using this concept in a post hoc manner without taking the situational factors into consideration were discussed.

Serial CS presentation and one-way avoidance conditioning: A noticeable lack of the delay in responding

An experiment was reported that compared seven different CS conditions on the acquisition and extinction of avoidance responses in a one-way situation. Three of the groups received nonserial CS manipulations comprising one, two, or three components; two received straight serial CS presentations (e.g., S1 followed by S2), comprising either two or three components; and two received serial compound CS conditions (e.g., SI1followed by S1S2) comprising either two or three components. The groups did not differ reliably on five different acquisition indices. The extinction data did produce reliable differences between combined serial and nonserial CS conditions with the serial CS conditions producing greater resistance to extinction. Reliable differences were not found between serial and serial compound conditions or between number of CS components. The tendency for the avoidance response to be delayed for the serial CS conditions which is characteristic of shuttlebox data was noticeably absent in the study. The majority of responses for both serial and nonserial CS conditions occurred close to the onset of the CS-US interval. A discussion illustrating the differences between one-way and shuttlebox avoidance situations was made.