児童および精神薄弱児の弁別学習における誤り要因分析

抄録

We tried to make a model of error factors so as to be able to analyze error responses on the n-dimensional discrimination learning (see Table 1). On the basis of the model, we worked out a way to calculate the rate of appearance of each error factor. We could not determine ene error factor for each error response, But we could determine possible error factors for each error response and also possible error factors for each correct response. In a block of trials the ratio of number of each error factor which possibly corresponds to error responses to that which possibly corresponds to all responses was used as measure of the rate of appearance.
Then, we applied the model to an analysis of the process of color discrimination learning and color discrimination shift learning in normal and mentally retarded children ((1) Matsuda & Matsuda, 1967) and examined if the model was useful to clarify differences in response patterns between both groups of subjects and among five reinforcement combinations, RW, RNw, NrW, RN and NW. Actual error factors in these learnings are shown in Table 2, and a sample of analysis and calculation of rate of appearance of error factors is shown in Table 3.
The results were as follows:
1) In (1) performance in the discrimination learning had been generally worse in mentally retarded children than in normal children. From analysis of error factors it was found that stimulus perseveration (error factor I), position alternation (error factor II), and win-stay-lose-shift and lose-stay-win-shift with regard to position (error factors III and III′) were stronger for mentally retarded children than normal children (see Table 4 and 5, and Fig. 2 and Fig. 3).
2) In 5 combinations of verbal reinforcement for mentally retarded children performance of NrW was found to be the best, and RN and RNw the worst ((1)). From analysis of error factors, it was found that error factor III was negligible only under NrW. Under RN and RNw, it seemed that subjects showed rather strong stimulus preference and were apt to respond in a stereotyped way (see Table 7).
3) In normal children, there was little difference in performance among 5 combinations of verbal reinforcement ((1)), but there was large difference in response patterns especially in regard to error factors II and II′. Error factor III was negligible under all 5 conditions.
4) It seemed that error factors which had been strong in discrimination learning were depressed in the discrimination shift learning and vice versa (see Tables 4 and 5, Fig. 4, Fig. 5, Fig. 6 and Fig. 7).