Pavlov's Dogs

By Saul McLeod, updated 2018

Like many great scientific advances, Pavlovian conditioning (aka classical

conditioning) was discovered accidentally.
During the 1890s, Russian physiologist, Ivan Pavlov was researching salivation in
dogs in response to being fed. He inserted a small test tube into the cheek of each
dog to measure saliva when the dogs were fed (with a powder made from meat).
Pavlov predicted the dogs would salivate in response to the food placed in front of
them, but he noticed that his dogs would begin to salivate whenever they heard
the footsteps of his assistant who was bringing them the food.

When Pavlov discovered that any object or event which the dogs learned to
associate with food (such as the lab assistant) would trigger the same response,
he realized that he had made an important scientific discovery. Accordingly, he
devoted the rest of his career to studying this type of learning.
Pavlovian Conditioning
Pavlov (1902) started from the idea that there are some things that a dog does not
need to learn. For example, dogs don’t learn to salivate whenever they see food.
This reflex is ‘hard-wired’ into the dog.
In behaviorist terms, food is an unconditioned stimulus and salivation is an
unconditioned response. (i.e., a stimulus-response connection that required no
learning).
Unconditioned Stimulus (Food) > Unconditioned Response (Salivate)

In his experiment, Pavlov used a metronome as his neutral stimulus. By itself the
metronome did not elecit a response from the dogs.
Neutral Stimulus (Metronome) > No Conditioned Response

Next, Pavlov began the conditioning procedure, whereby the clicking metronome
was introduced just before he gave food to his dogs. After a number of repeats
(trials) of this procedure he presented the metronome on its own.
As you might expect, the sound of the clicking metronome on its own now caused
an increase in salivation.
Conditioned Stimulus (Metronome) > Conditioned Response(Salivate)

So the dog had learned an association between the metronome and the food and a
new behavior had been learned. Because this response was learned (or
conditioned), it is called a conditioned response (and also known as a Pavlovian
response). The neutral stimulus has become a conditioned stimulus.
Pavlov found that for associations to be made, the two stimuli had to be
presented close together in time (such as a bell). He called this the law of
temporal contiguity. If the time between the conditioned stimulus (bell) and
unconditioned stimulus (food) is too great, then learning will not occur.
Pavlov and his studies of classical conditioning have become famous since his
early work between 1890-1930. Classical conditioning is "classical" in that it is
the first systematic study of basic laws of learning / conditioning.

Summary
To summarize, classical conditioning (later developed by Watson, 1913) involves
learning to associate an unconditioned stimulus that already brings about a
particular response (i.e., a reflex) with a new (conditioned) stimulus, so that the
new stimulus brings about the same response.

Pavlov developed some rather unfriendly technical terms to describe this process.
The unconditioned stimulus (or UCS) is the object or event that originally
produces the reflexive / natural response.
The response to this is called the unconditioned response (or UCR). The neutral
stimulus (NS) is a new stimulus that does not produce a response.
Once the neutral stimulus has become associated with the unconditioned
stimulus, it becomes a conditioned stimulus (CS). The conditioned response (CR)
is the response to the conditioned stimulus.
Classical Conditioning
By Saul McLeod, updated 2018

Classical conditioning (also known as Pavlovian conditioning) is learning through

association and was discovered by Pavlov, a Russian physiologist. In simple
terms two stimuli are linked together to produce a new learned response in a
person or animal.
John Watson proposed that the process of classical conditioning (based
on Pavlov’s observations) was able to explain all aspects of human psychology.
Everything from speech to emotional responses was simply patterns of stimulus
and response. Watson denied completely the existence of the mind or
consciousness. Watson believed that all individual differences in behavior were
due to different experiences of learning. He famously said:
"Give me a dozen healthy infants, well-formed, and my own specified world to bring
them up in and I'll guarantee to take any one at random and train him to become any
type of specialist I might select - doctor, lawyer, artist, merchant-chief and, yes, even
beggar-man and thief, regardless of his talents, penchants, tendencies, abilities,
vocations and the race of his ancestors” (Watson, 1924, p. 104).

Classical Conditioning Examples

There are three stages of classical conditioning. At each stage the stimuli and
responses are given special scientific terms:

Stage 1: Before Conditioning:

In this stage, the unconditioned stimulus (UCS) produces
an unconditioned response (UCR) in an organism.
In basic terms, this means that a stimulus in the environment has produced a
behavior / response which is unlearned (i.e., unconditioned) and therefore is a
natural response which has not been taught. In this respect, no new behavior has
been learned yet.
For example, a stomach virus (UCS) would produce a response of nausea (UCR).
In another example, a perfume (UCS) could create a response of happiness or
desire (UCR).
This stage also involves another stimulus which has no effect on a person and is
called the neutral stimulus (NS). The NS could be a person, object, place, etc.
The neutral stimulus in classical conditioning does not produce a response until
it is paired with the unconditioned stimulus.

Stage 2: During Conditioning:

During this stage a stimulus which produces no response (i.e., neutral) is
associated with the unconditioned stimulus at which point it now becomes
known as the conditioned stimulus (CS).
For example, a stomach virus (UCS) might be associated with eating a certain
food such as chocolate (CS). Also, perfume (UCS) might be associated with a
specific person (CS).

For classical conditioning to be effective, the conditioned stimulus should occur

before the unconditioned stimulus, rather than after it, or during the same time.
Thus, the conditioned stimulus acts as a type of signal or cue for the
unconditioned stimulus.
Often during this stage, the UCS must be associated with the CS on a number of
occasions, or trials, for learning to take place. However, one trail learning can
happen on certain occasions when it is not necessary for an association to be
strengthened over time (such as being sick after food poisoning or drinking too
much alcohol).

Stage 3: After Conditioning:

Now the conditioned stimulus (CS) has been associated with the unconditioned
stimulus (UCS) to create a new conditioned response (CR).
For example, a person (CS) who has been associated with nice perfume (UCS) is
now found attractive (CR). Also, chocolate (CS) which was eaten before a person
was sick with a virus (UCS) now produces a response of nausea (CR).
Little Albert Experiment (Phobias)

Ivan Pavlov showed that classical conditioning applied to animals.  Did it also

apply to humans? In a famous (though ethically dubious) experiment, Watson
and Rayner (1920) showed that it did.
Little Albert was a 9-month-old infant who was tested on his reactions to various
stimuli. He was shown a white rat, a rabbit, a monkey and various masks. Albert
described as "on the whole stolid and unemotional" showed no fear of any of
these stimuli. However, what did startle him and cause him to be afraid was if a
hammer was struck against a steel bar behind his head. The sudden loud noise
would cause "little Albert to burst into tears.
When Little Albert was just over 11 months old, the white rat was presented, and
seconds later the hammer was struck against the steel bar.  This was done seven
times over the next seven weeks, and each time Little Albert burst into tears. By
now little Albert only had to see the rat and he immediately showed every sign of
fear. He would cry (whether or not the hammer was hit against the steel bar) and
he would attempt to crawl away.
In addition, the Watson and Rayner found that Albert developed phobias of
objects which shared characteristics with the rat; including the family dog, a fur
coat, some cotton wool and a Father Christmas mask! This process is known as
generalization.
Watson and Rayner had shown that classical conditioning could be used to create
a phobia. A phobia is an irrational fear, i.e., a fear that is out of proportion to the
danger. Over the next few weeks and months, Little Albert was observed and ten
days after conditioning his fear of the rat was much less marked. This dying out
of a learned response is called extinction. However, even after a full month it was
still evident, and the association could be renewed by repeating the original
procedure a few times.

Classical Conditioning in the Classroom

The implications of classical conditioning in the classroom are less important
than those of operant conditioning, but there is a still need for teachers to try to
make sure that students associate positive emotional experiences with learning.
If a student associates negative emotional experiences with school, then this can
obviously have bad results, such as creating a school phobia.
For example, if a student is bullied at school they may learn to associate the
school with fear. It could also explain why some students show a particular
dislike of certain subjects that continue throughout their academic career. This
could happen if a student is humiliated or punished in class by a teacher.

Critical Evaluation
Classical conditioning emphasizes the importance of learning from the
environment, and supports nurture over nature. However, it is limiting to
describe behavior solely in terms of either nature or nurture, and attempts to do
this underestimate the complexity of human behavior. It is more likely that
behavior is due to an interaction between nature (biology) and nurture
(environment).
A strength of classical conditioning theory is that it is scientific. This is because
it's based on empirical evidence carried out by controlled experiments. For
example, Pavlov (1902) showed how classical conditioning could be used to make
a dog salivate to the sound of a bell.
Classical conditioning is also a reductionist explanation of behavior. This is
because a complex behavior is broken down into smaller stimulus-response units
of behavior.
Supporters of a reductionist approach say that it is scientific. Breaking
complicated behaviors down to small parts means that they can be scientifically
tested. However, some would argue that the reductionist view lacks validity.
Thus, while reductionism is useful, it can lead to incomplete explanations.
 A final criticism of classical conditioning theory is that it is deterministic. This
means that it does not allow for any degree of free will in the individual.
Accordingly, a person has no control over the reactions they have learned from
classical conditioning, such as a phobia.
The deterministic approach also has important implications for psychology as a
science. Scientists are interested in discovering laws which can then be used to
predict events. However, by creating general laws of behavior, deterministic
psychology underestimates the uniqueness of human beings and their freedom to
choose their own destiny.

What Is Classical
Conditioning?
A Step-by-Step Guide to How Classical Conditioning Really
Works
By Kendra Cherry  | Reviewed by Steven Gans, MD

Updated September 28, 2018

  Share
  Flip
  Email
PRINT 

Illustration by Joshua Seong. © Verywell, 2018.

 More in Theories
  Behavioral Psychology
 Cognitive Psychology
 Developmental Psychology
 Personality Psychology
 Social Psychology
 Biological Psychology
 Psychosocial Psychology

Classical conditioning is a type of learning that had a major influence on the school of
thought in psychology known as behaviorism. Discovered by Russian physiologist Ivan
Pavlov, classical conditioning is a learning process that occurs through associations
between an environmental stimulus and a naturally occurring stimulus.

Classical Conditioning Basics

Although classical conditioning was not discovered by a psychologist at all, it had a

tremendous influence over the school of thought in psychology known as behaviorism.

Behaviorism is based on the assumption that:

 All learning occurs through interactions with the environment

 The environment shapes behavior

It's important to note that classical conditioning involves placing a neutral signal before a
naturally occurring reflex. In Pavlov's classic experiment with dogs, the neutral signal
was the sound of a tone and the naturally occurring reflex was salivating in response to
food. By associating the neutral stimulus with the environmental stimulus (presenting of
food), the sound of the tone alone could produce the salivation response.

In order to understand how more about how classical conditioning works, it is important
to be familiar with the basic principles of the process.

How Does Classical Conditioning Work?

Classical conditioning basically involves forming an association between two stimuli

resulting in a learned response. There are three basic phases of this process:
Phase 1: Before Conditioning

The first part of the classical conditioning process requires a naturally occurring stimulus
that will automatically elicit a response. Salivating in response to the smell of food is a
good example of a naturally occurring stimulus.

During this phase of the processes, the unconditioned stimulus (UCS) results in an
unconditioned response (UCR). For example, presenting food (the UCS) naturally and
automatically triggers a salivation response (the UCR).

At this point, there is also a neutral stimulus that produces no effect - yet. It isn't until this
neutral stimulus is paired with the UCS that it will come to evoke a response.

Let's take a closer look at the two critical components of this phase of classical
conditioning.

The unconditioned stimulus is one that unconditionally, naturally, and automatically

triggers a response. For example, when you smell one of your favorite foods, you may
immediately feel very hungry. In this example, the smell of the food is the unconditioned
stimulus.

The unconditioned response is the unlearned response that occurs naturally in response to

the unconditioned stimulus. In our example, the feeling of hunger in response to the smell
of food is the unconditioned response.

Phase 2: During Conditioning

During the second phase of the classical conditioning process, the previously neutral
stimulus is repeatedly paired with the unconditioned stimulus. As a result of this pairing,
an association between the previously neutral stimulus and the UCS is formed. At this
point, the once neutral stimulus becomes known as the conditioned stimulus (CS). The
subject has now been conditioned to respond to this stimulus.

The conditioned stimulus is previously neutral stimulus that, after becoming associated

with the unconditioned stimulus, eventually comes to trigger a conditioned response. In
our earlier example, suppose that when you smelled your favorite food, you also heard
the sound of a whistle. While the whistle is unrelated to the smell of the food, if the sound
of the whistle was paired multiple times with the smell, the sound would eventually
trigger the conditioned response. In this case, the sound of the whistle is the conditioned
stimulus.

Phase 3: After Conditioning

Once the association has been made between the UCS and the CS, presenting the
conditioned stimulus alone will come to evoke a response even without the unconditioned
stimulus. The resulting response is known as the conditioned response (CR).

The conditioned response is the learned response to the previously neutral stimulus. In

our example, the conditioned response would be feeling hungry when you heard the
sound of the whistle.

Key Principles of Classical Conditioning

Behaviorists have described a number of different phenomena associated with classical

conditioning. Some of these elements involve the initial establishment of the response
while others describe the disappearance of a response. These elements are important in
understanding the classical conditioning process.

Let's take a closer look at five key principles of classical conditioning:

1. Acquisition

Acquisition is the initial stage of learning when a response is first established and
gradually strengthened. During the acquisition phase of classical conditioning, a neutral
stimulus is repeatedly paired with an unconditioned stimulus. As you may recall, an
unconditioned stimulus is something that naturally and automatically triggers a response
without any learning. After an association is made, the subject will begin to emit a
behavior in response to the previously neutral stimulus, which is now known as
a conditioned stimulus. It is at this point that we can say that the response has been
acquired.
For example, imagine that you are conditioning a dog to salivate in response to the sound
of a bell. You repeatedly pair the presentation of food with the sound of the bell. You can
say the response has been acquired as soon as the dog begins to salivate in response to the
bell tone.

Once the response has been established, you can gradually reinforce the salivation
response to make sure the behavior is well learned.

Acquisition in Classical Conditioning

2. Extinction

Extinction is when the occurrences of a conditioned response decreases or disappears. In

classical conditioning, this happens when a conditioned stimulus is no longer paired with
an unconditioned stimulus.

For example, if the smell of food (the unconditioned stimulus) had been paired with the
sound of a whistle (the conditioned stimulus), it would eventually come to evoke the
conditioned response of hunger. However, if the unconditioned stimulus (the smell of
food) were no longer paired with the conditioned stimulus (the whistle), eventually the
conditioned response (hunger) would disappear.

Extinction in Classical Conditioning

3. Spontaneous Recovery

Sometimes a learned response can suddenly reemerge even after a period of

extinction. Spontaneous recovery is the reappearance of the conditioned response after a
rest period or period of lessened response. For example, imagine that after training a dog
to salivate to the sound of a bell, you stop reinforcing the behavior and the response
eventually becomes extinct. After a rest period during which the conditioned stimulus is
not presented, you suddenly ring the bell and the animal spontaneously recovers the
previously learned response.
If the conditioned stimulus and unconditioned stimulus are no longer associated,
extinction will occur very rapidly after a spontaneous recovery.

Spontaneous Recovery From Conditioned Stimulus

4. Stimulus Generalization

Stimulus generalization is the tendency for the conditioned stimulus to evoke similar
responses after the response has been conditioned.

For example, if a dog has been conditioned to salivate at the sound of a bell, the animal
may also exhibit the same response to stimuli that are similar to the conditioned stimulus.
In John B. Watson's famous Little Albert Experiment, for example, a small child was
conditioned to fear a white rat. The child demonstrated stimulus generalization by also
exhibiting fear in response to other fuzzy white objects including stuffed toys and Watson
own hair.

How Stimulus Generalization Influences Learning

5. Stimulus Discrimination

Discrimination is the ability to differentiate between a conditioned stimulus and other

stimuli that have not been paired with an unconditioned stimulus.

For example, if a bell tone were the conditioned stimulus, discrimination would involve
being able to tell the difference between the bell tone and other similar sounds. Because
the subject is able to distinguish between these stimuli, he or she will only respond when
the conditioned stimulus is presented.

Understanding Stimulus Discrimination

Classical Conditioning Examples

It can be helpful to look at a few examples of how the classical conditioning process
operates both in experimental and real-world settings.
Classical Conditioning of a Fear Response

One of the most famous examples of classical conditioning was John B.

Watson's experiment in which a fear response was conditioned in a boy known as Little
Albert. The child initially showed no fear of a white rat, but after the rat was paired
repeatedly with loud, scary sounds, the child would cry when the rat was present. The
child's fear also generalized to other fuzzy white objects.

Let's examine the elements of this classic experiment. Prior to the conditioning, the white
rat was a neutral stimulus. The unconditioned stimulus was the loud, clanging sounds and
the unconditioned response was the fear response created by the noise. By repeatedly
pairing the rat with the unconditioned stimulus, the white rat (now the conditioned
stimulus) came to evoke the fear response (now the conditioned response).

This experiment illustrates how phobias can form through classical conditioning. In many

cases, a single pairing of a neutral stimulus (a dog, for example) and a frightening
experience (being bitten by the dog) can lead to a lasting phobia (being afraid of dogs).

Classical Conditioning of Taste Aversions

Another example of classical conditioning can be seen in the development of

conditioned taste aversions. Researchers John Garcia and Bob Koelling first noticed this
phenomenon when they observed how rats that had been exposed to a nausea-causing
radiation developed an aversion to flavored water after the radiation and the water were
presented together. In this example, the radiation represents the unconditioned stimulus
and the nausea represents the unconditioned response. After the pairing of the two, the
flavored water is the conditioned stimulus, while the nausea that formed when exposed to
the water alone is the conditioned response.

Later research demonstrated that such classically conditioned aversions could be

produced through a single pairing of the conditioned stimulus and the unconditioned
stimulus. Researchers also found that such aversions can even develop if the conditioned
stimulus (the taste of the food) is presented several hours before the unconditioned
stimulus (the nausea-causing stimulus).
Why do such associations develop so quickly? Obviously, forming such associations can
have survival benefits for the organism. If an animal eats something that makes it ill, it
needs to avoid eating the same food in the future to avoid sickness or even death. This is
a great example of what is known as biological preparedness. Some associations form
more readily because they aid in survival.

In one famous field study, researchers injected sheep carcasses with a poison that would
make coyotes sick but not kill them. The goal was to help sheep ranchers reduce the
number of sheep lost to coyote killings. Not only did the experiment work by lowering
the number of sheep killed, it also caused some of the coyotes to develop such a strong
aversion to sheep that they would actually run away at the scent or sight of a sheep.

A Word From Verywell

In reality, people do not respond exactly like Pavlov's dogs. There are, however,
numerous real-world applications for classical conditioning. For example, many dog
trainers use classical conditioning techniques to help people train their pets.

These techniques are also useful for helping people cope with phobias or anxiety
problems. Therapists might, for example, repeatedly pair something that provokes
anxiety with relaxation techniques in order to create an association.

Teachers are able to apply classical conditioning in the class by creating a positive
classroom environment to help students overcome anxiety or fear. Pairing an anxiety-
provoking situation, such as performing in front of a group, with pleasant surroundings
helps the student learn new associations. Instead of feeling anxious and tense in these
situations, the child will learn to stay relaxed and calm.

Skinner - Operant
Conditioning
By Saul McLeod, updated 2018
Operant conditioning is a method of learning that occurs through rewards and
punishments for behavior. Through operant conditioning, an individual makes
an association between a particular behavior and a consequence (Skinner, 1938).
By the 1920s, John B. Watson had left academic psychology, and
other behaviorists were becoming influential, proposing new forms of learning
other than classical conditioning. Perhaps the most important of these was
Burrhus Frederic Skinner. Although, for obvious reasons, he is more commonly
known as B.F. Skinner.
Skinner's views were slightly less extreme than those of Watson (1913). Skinner
believed that we do have such a thing as a mind, but that it is simply more
productive to study observable behavior rather than internal mental events.
The work of Skinner was rooted in a view that classical conditioning was far too
simplistic to be a complete explanation of complex human behavior. He believed
that the best way to understand behavior is to look at the causes of an action and
its consequences. He called this approach operant conditioning.

BF Skinner: Operant Conditioning

Skinner is regarded as the father of Operant Conditioning, but his work was
based on Thorndike’s (1898) law of effect. According to this principle, behavior
that is followed by pleasant consequences is likely to be repeated, and behavior
followed by unpleasant consequences is less likely to be repeated.
Skinner introduced a new term into the Law of Effect - Reinforcement. Behavior
which is reinforced tends to be repeated (i.e., strengthened); behavior which is
not reinforced tends to die out-or be extinguished (i.e., weakened).
Skinner (1948) studied operant conditioning by conducting experiments using
animals which he placed in a 'Skinner Box' which was similar to Thorndike’s
puzzle box.
Skinner identified three types of responses, or operant, that can follow behavior.
• Neutral operants: responses from the environment that neither increase nor
decrease the probability of a behavior being repeated.
• Reinforcers: Responses from the environment that increase the probability of
a behavior being repeated. Reinforcers can be either positive or negative.
• Punishers: Responses from the environment that decrease the likelihood of a
behavior being repeated. Punishment weakens behavior.
We can all think of examples of how our own behavior has been affected by
reinforcers and punishers. As a child you probably tried out a number of
behaviors and learned from their consequences. 
For example, if when you were younger you tried smoking at school, and the chief
consequence was that you got in with the crowd you always wanted to hang out
with, you would have been positively reinforced (i.e., rewarded) and would be
likely to repeat the behavior.
If, however, the main consequence was that you were caught, caned, suspended
from school and your parents became involved you would most certainly have
been punished, and you would consequently be much less likely to smoke now.
Positive Reinforcement
Skinner showed how positive reinforcement worked by placing a hungry rat in his
Skinner box. The box contained a lever on the side, and as the rat moved about
the box, it would accidentally knock the lever. Immediately it did so a food pellet
would drop into a container next to the lever.
The rats quickly learned to go straight to the lever after a few times of being put
in the box. The consequence of receiving food if they pressed the lever ensured
that they would repeat the action again and again.
Positive reinforcement strengthens a behavior by providing a consequence an
individual finds rewarding. For example, if your teacher gives you £5 each time
you complete your homework (i.e., a reward) you will be more likely to repeat this
behavior in the future, thus strengthening the behavior of completing your
homework.

Negative Reinforcement
The removal of an unpleasant reinforcer can also strengthen behavior. This is
known as negative reinforcement because it is the removal of an adverse stimulus
which is ‘rewarding’ to the animal or person. Negative reinforcement strengthens
behavior because it stops or removes an unpleasant experience.
For example, if you do not complete your homework, you give your teacher £5.
You will complete your homework to avoid paying £5, thus strengthening the
behavior of completing your homework.
Skinner showed how negative reinforcement worked by placing a rat in his
Skinner box and then subjecting it to an unpleasant electric current which caused
it some discomfort. As the rat moved about the box it would accidentally knock
the lever. Immediately it did so the electric current would be switched off. The
rats quickly learned to go straight to the lever after a few times of being put in the
box. The consequence of escaping the electric current ensured that they would
repeat the action again and again.
In fact Skinner even taught the rats to avoid the electric current by turning on a
light just before the electric current came on. The rats soon learned to press the
lever when the light came on because they knew that this would stop the electric
current being switched on.
These two learned responses are known as Escape Learning and Avoidance
Learning.

Punishment (weakens behavior)
Punishment is defined as the opposite of reinforcement since it is designed to
weaken or eliminate a response rather than increase it. It is an aversive event that
decreases the behavior that it follows.
Like reinforcement, punishment can work either by directly applying an
unpleasant stimulus like a shock after a response or by removing a potentially
rewarding stimulus, for instance, deducting someone’s pocket money to punish
undesirable behavior.
Note: It is not always easy to distinguish between punishment and negative
reinforcement.
There are many problems with using punishment, such as:
 Punished behavior is not forgotten, it's suppressed - behavior returns when
punishment is no longer present.
 Causes increased aggression - shows that aggression is a way to cope with
problems.
 Creates fear that can generalize to undesirable behaviors, e.g., fear of
school.
 Does not necessarily guide toward desired behavior - reinforcement tells
you what to do, punishment only tells you what not to do.

Schedules of Reinforcement
Imagine a rat in a “Skinner box.” In operant conditioning, if no food pellet is
delivered immediately after the lever is pressed then after several attempts the rat
stops pressing the lever (how long would someone continue to go to work if their
employer stopped paying them?). The behavior has been extinguished.
Behaviorists discovered that different patterns (or schedules) of
reinforcement had different effects on the speed of learning and extinction.
Ferster and Skinner (1957) devised different ways of delivering reinforcement
and found that this had effects on
 1. The Response Rate - The rate at which the rat pressed the lever (i.e.,
how hard the rat worked).
2. The Extinction Rate - The rate at which lever pressing dies out (i.e.,
how soon the rat gave up).

Skinner found that the type of reinforcement which produces the slowest rate of
extinction (i.e., people will go on repeating the behavior for the longest time
without reinforcement) is variable-ratio reinforcement. The type of
reinforcement which has the quickest rate of extinction is continuous
reinforcement.

(A) Continuous Reinforcement

An animal/human is positively reinforced every time a specific behavior occurs,
e.g., every time a lever is pressed a pellet is delivered, and then food delivery is
shut off.
 Response rate is SLOW
  Extinction rate is FAST

(B) Fixed Ratio Reinforcement

Behavior is reinforced only after the behavior occurs a specified number of times.
e.g., one reinforcement is given after every so many correct responses, e.g., after
every 5th response. For example, a child receives a star for every five words
spelled correctly.
 Response rate is FAST
 Extinction rate is MEDIUM

(C) Fixed Interval Reinforcement

One reinforcement is given after a fixed time interval providing at least one
correct response has been made. An example is being paid by the hour. Another
example would be every 15 minutes (half hour, hour, etc.) a pellet is delivered
(providing at least one lever press has been made) then food delivery is shut off.
 Response rate is MEDIUM
 Extinction rate is MEDIUM

(D) Variable Ratio Reinforcement

Behavior is reinforced after an unpredictable number of times. For examples
gambling or fishing.
 Response rate is FAST
 Extinction rate is SLOW (very hard to extinguish because of
unpredictability)

(E) Variable Interval Reinforcement

Providing one correct response has been made, reinforcement is given after an
unpredictable amount of time has passed, e.g., on average every 5 minutes. An
example is a self-employed person being paid at unpredictable times.
 Response rate is FAST
 Extinction rate is SLOW
Behavior Modification
Behavior modification is a set of therapies / techniques based on operant
conditioning (Skinner, 1938, 1953). The main principle comprises changing
environmental events that are related to a person's behavior. For example, the
reinforcement of desired behaviors and ignoring or punishing undesired ones.
This is not as simple as it sounds — always reinforcing desired behavior, for
example, is basically bribery.
There are different types of positive reinforcements. Primary reinforcement is
when a reward strengths a behavior by itself. Secondary reinforcement is when
something strengthens a behavior because it leads to a primary reinforcer.
Examples of behavior modification therapy include token economy and behavior
shaping.

Token Economy
Token economy is a system in which targeted behaviors are reinforced with
tokens (secondary reinforcers) and later exchanged for rewards (primary
reinforcers).
Tokens can be in the form of fake money, buttons, poker chips, stickers, etc.
While the rewards can range anywhere from snacks to privileges or activities. For
example, teachers use token economy at primary school by giving young children
stickers to reward good behavior.
Token economy has been found to be very effective in managing psychiatric
patients. However, the patients can become over reliant on the tokens, making it
difficult for them to adjust to society once they leave prison, hospital, etc.
Staff implementing a token economy programme have a lot of power. It is
important that staff do not favor or ignore certain individuals if the programme is
to work. Therefore, staff need to be trained to give tokens fairly and consistently
even when there are shift changes such as in prisons or in a psychiatric hospital.

Behavior Shaping
A further important contribution made by Skinner (1951) is the notion of
behavior shaping through successive approximation. Skinner argues that the
principles of operant conditioning can be used to produce extremely complex
behavior if rewards and punishments are delivered in such a way as to encourage
move an organism closer and closer to the desired behavior each time.
To do this, the conditions (or contingencies) required to receive the reward
should shift each time the organism moves a step closer to the desired behavior.
According to Skinner, most animal and human behavior (including language) can
be explained as a product of this type of successive approximation.

Educational Applications
In the conventional learning situation, operant conditioning applies largely to
issues of class and student management, rather than to learning content. It is
very relevant to shaping skill performance.
A simple way to shape behavior is to provide feedback on learner performance,
e.g., compliments, approval, encouragement, and affirmation. A variable-ratio
produces the highest response rate for students learning a new task, whereby
initially reinforcement (e.g., praise) occurs at frequent intervals, and as the
performance improves reinforcement occurs less frequently, until eventually only
exceptional outcomes are reinforced.
For example, if a teacher wanted to encourage students to answer questions in
class they should praise them for every attempt (regardless of whether their
answer is correct). Gradually the teacher will only praise the students when their
answer is correct, and over time only exceptional answers will be praised.
Unwanted behaviors, such as tardiness and dominating class discussion can be
extinguished through being ignored by the teacher (rather than being reinforced
by having attention drawn to them). This is not an easy task, as the teacher may
appear insincere if he/she thinks too much about the way to behave.
Knowledge of success is also important as it motivates future learning. However,
it is important to vary the type of reinforcement given so that the behavior is
maintained. This is not an easy task, as the teacher may appear insincere if
he/she thinks too much about the way to behave.
Summary
Looking at Skinner's classic studies on pigeons’ / rat's behavior we can identify
some of the major assumptions of the behaviorist approach.
• Psychology should be seen as a science, to be studied in a scientific manner.
Skinner's study of behavior in rats was conducted under carefully
controlled laboratory conditions.
• Behaviorism is primarily concerned with observable behavior, as opposed to
internal events like thinking and emotion. Note that Skinner did not say that the rats
learned to press a lever because they wanted food. He instead concentrated on
describing the easily observed behavior that the rats acquired.
• The major influence on human behavior is learning from our environment. In the
Skinner study, because food followed a particular behavior the rats learned to repeat
that behavior, e.g., operant conditioning.
• There is little difference between the learning that takes place in humans and that
in other animals. Therefore research (e.g., operant conditioning) can be carried out
on animals (Rats / Pigeons) as well as on humans. Skinner proposed that the way
humans learn behavior is much the same as the way the rats learned to press a lever.
So, if your layperson's idea of psychology has always been of people in
laboratories wearing white coats and watching hapless rats try to negotiate mazes
in order to get to their dinner, then you are probably thinking of behavioral
psychology.
Behaviorism and its offshoots tend to be among the most scientific of
the psychological perspectives. The emphasis of behavioral psychology is on how
we learn to behave in certain ways.
We are all constantly learning new behaviors and how to modify our existing
behavior. Behavioral psychology is the psychological approach that focuses on
how this learning takes place.

Critical Evaluation
Operant conditioning can be used to explain a wide variety of behaviors, from the
process of learning, to addiction and language acquisition. It also has practical
application (such as token economy) which can be applied in classrooms, prisons
and psychiatric hospitals.
 However, operant conditioning fails to take into account the role of inherited
and cognitive factors in learning, and thus is an incomplete explanation of the
learning process in humans and animals.
For example, Kohler (1924) found that primates often seem to solve problems in
a flash of insight rather than be trial and error learning. Also, social learning
theory (Bandura, 1977) suggests that humans can learn automatically through
observation rather than through personal experience.
The use of animal research in operant conditioning studies also raises the issue of
extrapolation. Some psychologists argue we cannot generalize from studies on
animals to humans as their anatomy and physiology is different from humans,
and they cannot think about their experiences and invoke reason, patience,
memory or self-comfort.

What Is Operant Conditioning

and How Does It Work?
How Reinforcement and Punishment Modify Behavior
By Kendra Cherry  | Reviewed by Steven Gans, MD

Updated October 02, 2018

  Share
  Flip
  Email
PRINT 

Illustration by Joshua Seong, Verywell

 More in Theories
  Behavioral Psychology
 Cognitive Psychology
 Developmental Psychology
 Personality Psychology
 Social Psychology
 Biological Psychology
 Psychosocial Psychology

Operant conditioning (sometimes referred to as instrumental conditioning) is a method of

learning that occurs through rewards and punishments for behavior. Through operant
conditioning, an association is made between a behavior and a consequence for that
behavior.

For example, when a lab rat presses a blue button, he receives a food pellet as a reward,
but when he presses the red button he receives a mild electric shock. As a result, he learns
to press the blue button but avoid the red button.

But operant conditioning is not just something that takes place in experimental settings
while training lab animals; it also plays a powerful role in everyday learning.
Reinforcement and punishment take place almost every day in natural settings as well as
in more structured settings such as the classroom or therapy sessions.

Let's take a closer look at how operant conditioning was discovered, the impact it had on
psychology, and how it is used to change old behaviors and teach new ones.

The History of Operant Conditioning

Operant conditioning was coined by behaviorist B.F. Skinner, which is why you may
occasionally hear it referred to as Skinnerian conditioning. As a behaviorist, Skinner
believed that it was not really necessary to look at internal thoughts and motivations in
order to explain behavior. Instead, he suggested, we should look only at the external,
observable causes of human behavior.

Through the first part of the 20th-century, behaviorism had become a major force within
psychology. The ideas of John B. Watson dominated this school of thought early on.
Watson focused on the principles of classical conditioning, once famously suggesting that
he could take any person regardless of their background and train them to be anything he
chose.

Where the early behaviorists had focused their interests on associative learning, Skinner
was more interested in how the consequences of people's actions influenced their
behavior.

Skinner used the term operant to refer to any "active behavior that operates upon the
environment to generate consequences." In other words, Skinner's theory explained how
we acquire the range of learned behaviors we exhibit each and every day.

His theory was heavily influenced by the work of psychologist Edward Thorndike, who
had proposed what he called the law of effect. According to this principle, actions that are
followed by desirable outcomes are more likely to be repeated while those followed by
undesirable outcomes are less likely to be repeated.

Operant conditioning relies on a fairly simple premise - actions that are followed by
reinforcement will be strengthened and more likely to occur again in the future. If you tell
a funny story in class and everybody laughs, you will probably be more likely to tell that
story again in the future. If you raise your hand to ask a question and your teacher praises
your polite behavior, you will be more likely to raise your hand the next time you have a
question or comment. Because the behavior was followed by reinforcement, or a
desirable outcome, the preceding actions are strengthened.

Conversely, actions that result in punishment or undesirable consequences will be

weakened and less likely to occur again in the future. If you tell the same story again in
another class but nobody laughs this time, you will be less likely to repeat the story again
in the future. If you shout out an answer in class and your teacher scolds you, then you
might be less likely to interrupt the class again.

Types of Behaviors

Skinner distinguished between two different types of behaviors

  Respondent behaviors are those that occur automatically and reflexively, such as
pulling your hand back from a hot stove or jerking your leg when the doctor taps
on your knee. You don't have to learn these behaviors, they simply occur
automatically and involuntarily.
 Operant behaviors, on the other hand, are those under our consciouscontrol.
Some may occur spontaneously and others purposely, but it is the consequences of
these actions that then influence whether or not they occur again in the future. Our
actions on the environment and the consequences of that action make up an
important part of the learning process.

While classical conditioning could account for respondent behaviors, Skinner realized
that it could not account for a great deal of learning. Instead, Skinner suggested that
operant conditioning held far greater importance.

Skinner invented different devices during his boyhood and he put these skills to work
during his studies on operant conditioning.

He created a device known as an operant conditioning chamber, most often referred to

today as a Skinner box. The chamber was essentially a box that could hold a small animal
such as a rat or pigeon. The box also contained a bar or key that the animal could press in
order to receive a reward.

In order to track responses, Skinner also developed a device known as a cumulative

recorder. The device recorded responses as an upward movement of a line so that
response rates could be read by looking at the slope of the line.

Components of Operant Conditioning

There are several key concepts in operant conditioning.

Reinforcement in Operant Conditioning

Reinforcement is any event that strengthens or increases the behavior it follows. There
are two kinds of reinforcers:
 1. Positive reinforcers are favorable events or outcomes that are presented after the
behavior. In situations that reflect positive reinforcement, a response or behavior is
strengthened by the addition of something, such as praise or a direct reward. For
example, if you do a good job at work and your manager gives you a bonus.
2. Negative reinforcers involve the removal of an unfavorable events or outcomes
after the display of a behavior. In these situations, a response is strengthened by
the removal of something considered unpleasant. For example, if your child starts
to scream in the middle of the grocery store, but stops once you hand him a treat,
you will be more likely to hand him a treat the next time he starts to scream. Your
action led to the removal of the unpleasant condition (the child screaming),
negatively reinforcing your behavior.

In both of these cases of reinforcement, the behavior increases.

Reinforcement in Conditioning Behavior

Punishment in Operant Conditioning

Punishment is the presentation of an adverse event or outcome that causes a decrease in

the behavior it follows. There are two kinds of punishment:

1. Positive punishment, sometimes referred to as punishment by application,

presents an unfavorable event or outcome in order to weaken the response it
follows. Spanking for misbehavior is an example of punishment by application.
2. Negative punishment, also known as punishment by removal, occurs when a
favorable event or outcome is removed after a behavior occurs. Taking away a
child's video game following misbehavior is an example of negative punishment.

In both of these cases of punishment, the behavior decreases.

Punishment and its Influence on Behavior

Reinforcement Schedules
Reinforcement is not necessarily a straightforward process and there are a number of
factors that can influence how quickly and how well new things are learned. Skinner
found that when and how often behaviors were reinforced played a role in the speed and
strength of acquisition. In other words, the timing and frequency of reinforcement
influenced how new behaviors were learned and how old behaviors were modified.

Skinner identified several different schedules of reinforcement that impact the operant

conditioning process:

1. Continuous reinforcement involves delivery a reinforcement every time a

response occurs. Learning tends to occur relatively quickly, yet the response rate is
quite low. Extinction also occurs very quickly once reinforcement is halted.
2. Fixed-ratio schedules are a type of partial reinforcement. Responses are
reinforced only after a specific number of responses have occurred. This typically
leads to a fairly steady response rate.
3. Fixed-interval schedules are another form of partial reinforcement.
Reinforcement occurs only after a certain interval of time has elapsed. Response
rates remain fairly steady and start to increase as the reinforcement time draws
near, but slow immediately after the reinforcement has been delivered.
4. Variable-ratio schedules are also a type of partial reinforcement that involve
reinforcing behavior after a varied number of responses. This leads to both a high
response rate and slow extinction rates.
5. Variable-interval schedules are the final form of partial reinforcement Skinner
described. This schedule involves delivering reinforcement after a variable amount
of time has elapsed. This also tends to lead to a fast response rate and slow
extinction rate.

Reinforcement Schedules and How They Work

Examples of Operant Conditioning

We can find examples of operant conditioning at work all around us. Consider the case of
children completing homework to earn a reward from a parent or teacher, or employees
finishing projects to receive praise or promotions.
Some more examples of operant conditioning in action:

 If your child acts out during a shopping trip, you might give him a treat to get him
to be quiet. Because you have positively reinforced the misbehavior, he will
probably be more likely to act out again in the future in order to receive another
treat.
 After performing in a community theater play, you receive applause from the
audience. This acts as a positive reinforcer inspiring you to try out for more
performance roles.
 You train your dog to fetch by offering him praise and a pat on the head whenever
he performs the behavior correctly.
 A professor tells students that if they have perfect attendance all semester, then
they do not have to take the final comprehensive exam. By removing an
unpleasant stimulus (the final test) students are negatively reinforced to attend
class regularly.
 If you fail to hand in a project on time, your boss becomes angry and berates your
performance in front of your co-workers. This acts as a positive punisher making it
less likely that you will finish projects late in the future.

 A teen girl does not clean up her room as she was asked, so her parents take away
her phone for the rest of the day. This is an example of a negative punishment in
which a positive stimulus is taken away.

In some of these examples, the promise or possibility of rewards causes an increase in

behavior, but operant conditioning can also be used to decrease a behavior. The removal
of a desirable outcome or negative outcome application can be used to decrease or
prevent undesirable behaviors. For example, a child may be told they will lose recess
privileges if they talk out of turn in class. This potential for punishment may lead to a
decrease in disruptive behaviors.

A Word From Verywell

While behaviorism may have lost much of the dominance it held during the early part of
the 20th-century, operant conditioning remains an important and often utilized tool in the
learning and behavior modification process. Sometimes natural consequences lead to
changes in our behavior. In other instances, rewards and punishments may be consciously
doled out in order to create a change.

Operant conditioning is something you may immediately recognize in your own life,
whether it is in your approach to teaching your children good behavior or in training the
family dog to stop chewing on your favorite slippers. The important thing to remember is
that with any type of learning, it can sometimes take time. Consider the type of
reinforcement or punishment that may work best for your unique situation and assess
which type of reinforcement schedule might lead to the best results.

Cognitive Learning is a type of learning that is active, constructive, and long-lasting.

It engages students in the learning processes, teaching them to use their brains more
effectively to make connections when learning new things.

WHAT DOES COGNITIVE LEARNING FOCUS ON?

This style of learning is a powerful alternative to the traditional classroom

approach. Instead of focusing on memorization, cognitive learning builds on

past knowledge. Students learn to make connections and reflect on the

material—skills that help them become better learners.

FACTORS OF COGNITIVE LEARNING

Comprehension

Building cognitive learning skills teaches students how to learn more effectively.

Students learn to do more than repeat what they have learned. They understand the

“why” behind a topic and how it fits into a larger picture.

Memory

Unlike drill-and-kill memorization methods, cognitive learning helps students gain a

deeper understanding of a subject. This improves recall in the long run, so students

can build upon past knowledge.

Application

The cognitive learning approach gives students the chance to reflect on what they are

learning and how it applies to other material. This helps students develop problem-

solving skills they need to create new connections between what they are learning.

THE COGNITIVE LEARNING APPROACH

 Learn how we use the Cognitive Learning approach 

to teach students more effectively

FIND OUT MORE 

BENEFITS OF COGNITIVE LEARNING

1. IMPROVES COMPREHENSION

Cognitive learning encourages students to take a hands-on approach to

learning. This allows them to explore the material and develop a deeper

understanding.

2. DEVELOPS PROBLEM-SOLVING SKILLS

The cognitive learning approach teaches students the skills they need to learn

effectively. This helps students build transferable problem-solving and study

skills that they can apply in any subject.

3. PROMOTES LONG-TERM LEARNING

Developing cognitive skills allows students to build upon previous knowledge

and ideas. This teaches students to make connections and apply new concepts

to what they already know.

4. IMPROVES CONFIDENCE
 With a deeper understanding of topics and stronger learning skills, students can

approach schoolwork with enthusiasm and confidence.

5. INSTILLS A LOVE OF LEARNING

Giving students the chance to actively engage in learning makes it fun and

exciting. This helps students develop a lifelong love for learning outside of the

classroom.

Find out more about how the tutoring programs at GradePower Learning use

Cognitive Learning to teach children more effectively.

Using Thinking to Learn

The Cognitive Learning Theory explains why the brain is the most incredible
network of information processing and interpretation in the body as we learn
things. This theory can be divided into two specific theories: the Social
Cognitive Theory (SCT), and the Cognitive Behavioral Theory (CBT).
When we say the word “learning”, we usually mean “to think using the brain”. This basic concept of
learning is the main viewpoint in the Cognitive Learning Theory (CLT). The theory has been used to
explain mental processes as they are influenced by both intrinsic and extrinsic factors, which
eventually bring about learning in an individual.

Cognitive Learning Theory implies that the different processes concerning learning can be explained
by analyzing the mental processes first. It posits that with effective cognitive processes, learning is
easier and new information can be stored in the memory for a long time. On the other hand,
ineffective cognitive processes result to learning difficulties that can be seen anytime during the
lifetime of an individual.

A. Social Cognitive Theory

In the Social Cognitive Theory, we are considering 3 variables:

 behavioral factors
 environmental factors (extrinsic)
 personal factors (intrinsic)
 These 3 variables in Social Cognitive Theory are said to be interrelated with each other, causing
learning to occur. An individual’s personal experience can converge with the behavioral
determinants and the environmental factors.

Social Cognitive Theory Illustration (Pajares, 2002)

In the person-environment interaction, human beliefs, ideas and cognitive competencies are
modified by external factors such as a supportive parent, stressful environment or a hot climate. In
the person-behavior interaction, the cognitive processes of a person affect his behavior; likewise,
performance of such behavior can modify the way he thinks. Lastly, the environment-behavior
interaction, external factors can alter the way you display the behavior. Also, your behavior can
affect and modify your environment. This model clearly implies that for effective and positive learning
to occur an individual should have positive personal characteristics, exhibit appropriate behavior and
stay in a supportive environment.

In addition, Social Cognitive Theory states that new experiences are to be evaluated by the learner
by means of analyzing his past experiences with the same determinants. Learning, therefore, is a
result of a thorough evaluation of the present experience versus the past.

Basic Concepts

Social Cognitive Theory includes several basic concepts that can manifest not only in adults but also
in infants, children and adolescents.

1. Observational Learning
learning from other people by means of observing them is an effective way of gaining
knowledge and altering behavior.
2. Reproduction
the process wherein there is an aim to effectively increase the repeating of a behavior by
means of putting the individual in a comfortable environment with readily accessible
 materials to motivate him to retain the new knowledge and behavior learned and practice
them.
3. Self-efficacy
the course wherein the learner improves his newly learned knowledge or behavior by
putting it into practice.
4. Emotional coping
good coping mechanisms against stressful environment and negative personal
characteristics can lead to effective learning, especially in adults.
5. Self-regulatory capability
ability to control behavior even within an unfavorable environment.
B. Cognitive Behavioral Theory
 Cognitive Behavioral Theory describes the role of cognition (knowing) to determining and predicting
the behavioral pattern of an individual. This theory was developed by Aaron Beck.

The Cognitive Behavioral Theory says that individuals tend to form self-concepts that affect the
behavior they display. These concepts can be positive or negative and can be affected by a person’s
environment.

The Cognitive Triad

Cognitive Behavioral Theory further explains human behavior and learning using the cognitive triad.
This triad includes negative thoughts about:

1. The self (i.e., I am rubbish)

2. The world/environment (i.e., the world is irrational)

3. The future (i.e., my future is doomed)

Cognitive Learning: A Guide

to Types of Learning
October 31, 2017  /// MARIO DE VICENTE







Whether you realize it or not, cognitive learning has played an important

role in your life ever since you were a baby. You learn through
experiences, emotions, friendships, and people, and you never stop
learning. How you’re taught and brought up defines who you are. Below
we’ll talk about how our brain plays a role in education (in more ways
than you might think!)
Not only can knowing how the brain works help you learn better, but it can
help educators teach better. Discover the different types of cognitive
learning and find out how to learn better than ever before!
 Cognitive learning
If you’ve ever gone to school, you probably remember those classes
of being drilled with information, and later going home to study and
memorize the same information. Memorize, repeat, memorize,
repeat… It’s how many teachers used to teach, but it is really the
best way to learn? Memorizing information doesn’t teach you how
to use the information you’re learning, mold your personality, and
really make a difference to you and your goals. Memorizing is
remembering information without giving it a deeper meaning, which
makes it impossible to truly learn.
General Cognitive Assessment Battery from CogniFit: Study brain function and
complete a comprehensive online screening. Precisely evaluate a wide range of
abilities and detect cognitive well-being (high-moderate-low). Identify strengths
and weaknesses in the areas of memory, concentration/attention, executive
functions, planning, and coordination.
The way you learn and what you learn, especially, as a child, helps
mold who you are. Despite the information and resources that we
have regarding cognitive learning, it still hasn’t been applied to the
academic system. We have to learn how to learn with our brains,
how to find the best learning strategies for each person’s learning
style, and we have to know what that actually means.
Real cognitive learning uses more than just the brain and
“intelligence”. It uses emotion, intrigue, movement, surprise, and
specific brain-based learning tools to get the most out of each person’s
cognitive development.
What is cognitive learning?. “Cognitive” refers to “cognition”, which
the Oxford dictionary defines as “the mental action or process of
acquiring knowledge and understanding through thought,
experience, and the senses.” Webster’s Dictionary defines learning
as “knowledge or skill acquired by instruction or study”. The
concept of cognitive learning unites these two ideas, and defines
the processes that intervene when processing information, which
goes from sensory input, passes through the cognitive system, and
reaches the response.
The idea of learning may be the action that has most set humans
apart throughout our history. We are the living proof of the
continuous, meaningful learning at has allowed for the human life as
we know it today.
Bloom established that in cognitive learning the domains involve
knowledge and the development of intellectual skills. This includes
recalling or recognizing facts, patterns, procedures, concepts that
help develop intellectual abilities. For him the six major categories
of cognitive processes are:
 Knowledge
 Comprehension
 Application
 Analysis
 Synthesis
 Evaluation
The categories can be thought of as degrees of difficulties. That is,
the first ones must normally be mastered before the next one can
take place.
 Cognitive Learning
The brain is what guides and directs our learning, and as human
beings have evolved and advanced, we have learned more and
more information, skills, and ideas that have helped us become
more intelligent. However, the brain has not actually become more
sophisticated as we advanced over time, but rather, we have
changed how we learn. The more scientists learn about the brain,
the easier it is to take advantage of how it works and its
characteristics and make it easier for us to learn.

Types of learning
1. Implicit learning
Implicit learning is a kind of “blind” learning, as you acquire
information without realizing what you’re learning.
The main characteristic of this type of cognitive learning is that it is
unintentional. The learner doesn’t set out to learn the information
and the learning results from an automatic motor behavior.
Certain activities require an unintentional type of learning, like
walking or talking. There are more things than you might think that
you learned implicitly, without even realizing that you were
learning.

2. Explicit learning
Explicit learning is characterized by the intention of learning and
consciously setting out to learn. There are many examples of this
type of cognitive learning, like reading this article to learn about
explicit learning, as the intention is to learn about the topic.
Explicit learning is an intentional act that requires sustained
attention and an effort to learn.

3. Cooperative and Collaborative Learning

Cooperative learning is group learning, like when a student learns
and studies with their classmates.This type of learning helps include
each member of the team to offer and use their best skills, which
helps create successful teamwork.
The four pillars that make up this type of cognitive learning are
positive interdependence, individual responsibility, equal
participation, and simultaneous interaction.
Similar to cooperative learning, collaborative learning has which has
one person, usually a teacher, who provides a topic and helps the
group develop their ideas.
 Cognitive learning

4. Meaningful learning
This type of cognitive learning uses cognitive, emotional, and
motivational dimensions. The person organize and connect their
personal experiences with their learning, relating their experiences
to the information or idea that they are learning. This means that
the new concept will be unique to each individual person, as each
person will have their own history and experiences.

5. Associative learning
If you’ve ever heard of Pavlov’s dogs, you know this kind of
cognitive learning. Associative learning is defined as the association
between a determined stimulus and a precise behavior. In the case
of Pavlov’s dogs, the sound of the bell saying that it was time to eat
was translated into the dogs salivating and anticipating eating
whenever they heard the bell.

6. Habituation and sensitization: Non-

associative learning
These two processes are included within the same type of
learning: non-associative learning. We react differently to a
continuous stimulus.
Habituation learning is a primitive type of learning that makes it
possible to adapt, and is something that we do daily and our day-
to-day lives. This type of learning happens when you stop paying
attention to a stimulus (decrease in stimulus response). An example
of habituation learning can be found of people who live near a loud
highway. The first day they move in, they’ll hear all of the cars,
trucks, busses, and motorcycles that go by their house on the
highway, but the longer they live there, they more they will get
used to the sound and the less it will bother them.
Sensitization learning is the opposite of habituation learning. This
means that your response will increase when faced with a repeated
stimulus, meaning that the more you are presented a stimulus, the
more you will perceive it. Sensitization is a very adaptive and
primitive type of learning.

7. Discovery learning
When you actively search for information and go out of your way to
learn, you’re learning through discovery. This type of cognitive
learning is characterized by when an individual is interested, learns,
relates concepts, and adapts to the cognitive scheme.

8. Observation or imitation learning

This type of cognitive learning is when you use a model to imitate,
and is very related to mirror neurons. Imitation is a powerful
learning tool.

9. Emotional learning
This type of learning involves the individual’s emotional
development and is what helps develop emotional intelligence,
which is what manages and controls emotions.
Emotions also play an important role in learning, which we will talk
about later.

10. Experiential learning

Experience is the best teacher. Our life’s experiences teach us
valuable lessons that we learn from. This type of cognitive learning
is very powerful, but is subjective, as each individual will experience
an event differently. One person may view a particular experience
in certain way, while another person will view it differently.
11. Rote learning
This type of cognitive learning is based on memory and paying
close attention to certain information. The main difference between
this and meaningful memory is that rote memory acts like a video
camera, without having to actually understand what you learn.

12. Receptive learning

This is a complete passive type of learning, where the person only
receives the information they have to learn. A great example of
receptive learning is in a lecture, where the teacher lectures and the
students listen passively.

13. Metacognitive strategies

It’s important to highlight this other type of learning strategy to
better understand how we learn. These strategies involve knowing
how to actually access the learning processes. It is knowing yourself
and your strengths and weaknesses to know how you learn best.
Every person is different, which is why different learning strategies
work for different people. Knowing your personal strengths and
weaknesses can help when learning how to learn.
CogniFit innovative online dyslexia test is a scientific resource that allows you to
carry out a complete cognitive screening. Find out cognitive weaknesses and
strengths, and evaluate the risk index of dyslexia with excellent reliability. This
test is aimed at children over 7 years old, young people and adults.

Cognitive learning: How to

bring the brain into education
While we’ve learned a lot about the brain and learning in the last
thirty years, many people are still working off of an antiquated idea
of learning, where reading and memorizing are the considered to be
the best way to learn. Studies have shown that factors like exercise,
emotions, mood, interest, and experimentation are the pillars
behind successful and effective learning.
Importance of emotion
Feeling emotions is vital to remembering information and concepts.
Emotions are the cement of a memory.
The information that we receive from the senses passes through
the limbic system before reaching the cerebral cortex. The limbic
system has some of the most primitive parts of the brain, like the
amygdala, which is activated when it thinks that a certain event is
important for survival. The amygdala is the cement that holds and
consolidates memory.
You probably remember your birthday last year better than what
you did in class or at work two weeks ago.

Exercise and learn

Studies have shown that exercise doesn’t only improve physical
performance, but cognitive learning performance as well. When you
exercise, proteins that help with neuroplasticity are released,
improving cognition.
According to the Spanish child and adolescent health observatory,
physical exercise contributes to maintaining and even improving,
aspects related to cognitive performance and mental health.
Among the many benefits of exercise, you’ll also get cognitive
benefits like:
-Better academic performance and better able to pay attention
-A lower possibility of having disorders like depression or anxiety
-Better mood and emotional state
 Cognitive learning

Learning Windows
If we’re talking about learning, we have to mention learning
windows.
Brain-based learning defends the idea that there are certain
“windows” where you are in your prime to learn. It refers to critical
periods that favor one type of learning over another, says Francisco
Mora.
While it is possible to learn to talk at any age, our bodies are
primed to learn between the ages of 0-3, which makes it the
optimal time to learn to talk. Even though it’s possible to learn later
in life, it’s more difficult and it’s possible that the results won’t be
the same.

Child rearing mistakes

Not taking advantage of windows
If you take into account what we know about the brain and the best
learning strategies, you would probably think that changes would
have been made to optimize the education system. However, this
isn’t the case. If teachers and educators took these learning
windows into account when teaching, you wouldn’t see young
children sitting while learning (they learn better while moving
around), and we wouldn’t be teaching teens about purely
theoretical science when their brains are totally emotional.

Use the same kind of learning

It seems to be that the most common kind of learning schools in
receptive or rote learning, a complete mechanic and passive type of
learning that doesn’t take learning windows into account.
How should we learn?
That’s a good question.
We need to incorporate movement and emotion, surprise and
interest into the minds of each student. Researchers have learned a
lot over the last few years, but it’s time to put it into action!

Questions or comments? Leave a comment below! 

The 7 Most Common

Learning Types
[Infographic]
by Lee Watanabe-Crockett | Jan 13, 2018
Education had a remarkable epiphany long ago. Simply put, there are a whole
lot of learners in our classrooms and they don’t all learn the same way. This
recognition of diversity in learning types has transformed teaching for the
better in every way. Consequently, we can tailor instruction and assessment
to meet the needs of individual learners, and help them make the most
meanngful connections to what we teach.
Our different learning types should be nurtured and celebrated, and identifying
their characteristics can help make this happen. Take some pointers from this
simple and informative infographic from Acadoceo called 7 Different Types
Of Learning Styles.

7 Common Learning Types in Our Classrooms

The following descriptions are from ELearning Infographics. They explain the
basics of each of the learning types in the infographic. Next, you can pinpoint
their qualities among your own learners.
 Visual Learning: Visual learning types do well when they use symbols,
boxes, charts, and colors in their notes. If you find you learn better by
reading and looking at pictures, diagrams, and graphs then chances are
you’re a visual learner.
 Verbal Learning: Verbal learners practice things like reciting information
out loud, writing their own notes and highlighting key points. Having a
 passion for words, writing, tongue twisters, rhymes, may indicate that this
learning style is for you.
 Aural Learning: Aural learning involves using sound and music. Auditory
learners develop understanding and memory by hearing and listening. If
you find it easier to understand spoken instructions rather than reading
them, aural learning will benefit you.
 Physical Learning: Physical learning involves using your body and sense
of touch to learn. Physical learners learn by doing, touching, moving,
building, and are described as a ‘hands-on”. If you find it difficult to sit still
for long periods of time, chances are you’re a physical learner.
 Logical Learning: Logical learners often learn by asking a lot of
questions. Logical learners want to understand the whole picture. They
are natural thinkers who learn by classifying, categorizing and thinking
abstractly about patterns & relationships etc.
 Social Learning: Social learners prefer to learn in groups rather than on
their own, and like generating ideas by brainstorming with others. If you
like taking part in group sports and prefer social activities than doing
things on your own, you may be a social learner.
 Solitary Learning: Solitary learners tend to be more independent and
introspective, spending a lot of time on their own, enjoying their own
company. If you enjoy spending time alone, keeping a journal and
engaging in self-analysis to gain a deeper understanding of yourself, you
may be a solitary learner.
Enjoy this infographic as you explore and engage the diversity of learning
types among your own students.
Additional Reading
 The Future of Education is Unstructured Learning, and Here’s Why
 3 Ways Practicing Kindness Enhances the Learning Process
 3 Simple Actions for Fostering Learning Ownership in Your Learners

Thorndike and the Laws of Learning

 The Learning Process

 FACEBOOK
 TWITTER
 GOOGLE+
 PINTEREST
 LINKEDIN

One of the pioneers of educational psychology, E.L. Thorndike formulated three laws of
learning in the early 20th century. [Figure 2-7] These laws are universally accepted and
apply to all kinds of learning: the law of readiness, the law of exercise, and the law of
effect. Since Thorndike set down his laws, three more have been added: the law of
primacy, the law of intensity, and the law of recency.

Figure 2-7. E. L. Thorndike (1874–1949).

Readiness
The basic needs of the learner must be satisfied before he or she is ready or capable of
learning (see Category 1, Human Behavior). The instructor can do little to motivate the
learner if these needs have not been met. This means the learner must want to learn
the task being presented and must possess the requisite knowledge and skill. In SBT,
the instructor attempts to make the task as meaningful as possible and to keep it within
the learner’s capabilities.
Students best acquire new knowledge when they see a clear reason for doing so, often
show a strong interest in learning what they believe they need to know next, and tend to
set aside things for which they see no immediate need. For example, beginning flight
students commonly ignore the flight instructor’s suggestion to use the trim control.
These students believe the control yoke is an adequate way to manipulate the aircraft’s
control surfaces. Later in training, when they must divert their attention away from the
controls to other tasks, they realize the importance of trim.

 
Instructors can take two steps to keep their students in a state of readiness to learn.
First, instructors should communicate a clear set of learning objectives to the student
and relate each new topic to those objectives. Second, instructors should introduce
topics in a logical order and leave students with a need to learn the next topic. The
development and use of a well-designed curriculum accomplish this goal.

Readiness to learn also involves what is called the “teachable moment” or a moment of
educational opportunity when a person is particularly responsive to being taught
something. One of the most important skills to develop as an instructor is the ability to
recognize and capitalize on “teachable moments” in aviation training. An instructor can
find or create teachable moments in flight training activity: pattern work, air work in the
local practice area, cross-country, flight review, or instrument proficiency check.

Teachable moments present opportunities to convey information in a way that is

relevant, effective, and memorable to the student. They occur when a learner can
clearly see how specific information or skills can be used in the real world.

For example, while on final approach several deer cross the runway. Bill capitalizes on
this teachable moment to stress the importance of always being ready to perform a go-
around.

Effect
All learning involves the formation of connections and connections are strengthened or
weakened according to the law of effect. Responses to a situation that are followed by
satisfaction are strengthened; responses followed by discomfort are weakened, either
strengthening or weakening the connection of learning. Thus, learning is strengthened
when accompanied by a pleasant or satisfying feeling, and weakened when associated
with an unpleasant feeling. Experiences that produce feelings of defeat, frustration,
anger, confusion, or futility are unpleasant for the student. For example, if Bill teaches
landings to Beverly during the first flight, she is likely to feel inferior and be frustrated,
which weakens the learning connection.

The learner needs to have success in order to have more success in the future. It is
important for the instructor to create situations designed to promote success. Positive
training experiences are more apt to lead to success and motivate the learner, while
negative training experiences might stimulate forgetfulness or avoidance. When
presented correctly, SBT provides immediate positive experiences in terms of real world
applications.

To keep learning pleasant and to maintain student motivation, an instructor should

make positive comments about the student’s progress before discussing areas that
need improving. Flight instructors have an opportunity to do this during the flight
debriefing. For example, Bill praises Beverly on her aircraft control during all phases of
flight, but offers constructive comments on how to better maintain the runway centerline
during landings.

Exercise
Connections are strengthened with practice and weakened when practice is
discontinued, which reflects the adage “use it or lose it.” The learner needs to practice
what has been learned in order to understand and remember the learning. Practice
strengthens the learning connection; disuse weakens it. Exercise is most meaningful
and effective when a skill is learned within the context of a real world application.

Primacy
Primacy, the state of being first, often creates a strong, almost unshakable impression
and underlies the reason an instructor must teach correctly the first time and the student
must learn correctly the first time. For example, a maintenance student learns a faulty
riveting technique. Now the instructor must correct the bad habit and reteach the correct
technique. Relearning is more difficult than initial learning.

Also, if the task is learned in isolation, it is not initially applied to the overall
performance, or if it must be relearned, the process can be confusing and time
consuming. The first experience should be positive, functional, and lay the foundation
for all that is to follow.

Intensity
Immediate, exciting, or dramatic learning connected to a real situation teaches a learner
more than a routine or boring experience. Real world applications (scenarios) that
integrate procedures and tasks the learner is capable of learning make a vivid
impression and he or she is least likely to forget the experience. For example, using
realistic scenarios has been shown to be effective in the development of proficiency in
flight maneuvers, tasks, and single-pilot resource management (SRM) skills.

Recency
The principle of recency states that things most recently learned are best remembered.
Conversely, the further a learner is removed in time from a new fact or understanding,
the more difficult it is to remember. For example, it is easy for a learner to recall a
torque value used a few minutes earlier, but it is more difficult or even impossible to
remember an unfamiliar one used a week earlier.

Instructors recognize the principle of recency when they carefully plan a summary for a
ground school lesson, a shop period, or a postflight critique. The instructor repeats,
restates, or reemphasizes important points at the end of a lesson to help the learner
remember them. The principle of recency often determines the sequence of lectures
within a course of instruction.

In SBT, the closer the training or learning time is to the time of the actual scenario, the
more apt the learner is to perform successfully. This law is most effectively addressed
by making the training experience as much like the scenario as possible.
Laws of Learning: Primary and
Secondary | Psychology
Article Shared by  <="" div="" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px;
outline: 0px; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: bottom; background: transparent; max-width: 100%;">

Learning is a complex process. All the same, it can be understood by

making abroad application of some laws. Generally speaking, some
laws have been discovered and explained by Thorndike. His laws,
namely Law of Exercise, Law of Readiness and Law of Effect, have
been accepted by all. We may discuss here some of common major
laws propounded by Thorndike and other psychologists.

Law of Exercise, Primary Laws of Learning:

This law is also called ‘Law of Use and Disuse’.

(i) Law of Use:
When a modifiable connection is made between a situation and a
response, that connection’s strength is other things being equal,
increased’.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

(ii) Law of Disuse:
When a modifiable connection is not made between a situation and a
response over a length of time, that connection’s strength, other things
being equal, decrease.

In brief, we may say that repetition and drill helps learning, and its
absence causes forgetfulness. We also believe in the common proverb,
practice makes a man perfect’. Drill is based on the principle that
repetition fixes the facts to be learnt. That is the reason why the pupils
have to repeat arithmetical tables, formulae, spelling lists and
definitions in order to establish these.
In all skill lessons, say handwriting, dance, music, craft and drawing
repetition is necessary. Lack of practice or exercise causes the memory
of the learned material to weaken. Lack of practice causes
forgetfulness. We forget because subsequent experiences tend to rule
out what has been learnt.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

Educational Implication of Law of Exercise:

(i) We should devote much of our learning time to acquiring all these
facts, abilities, arts and skills, which we shall find useful.

(ii) We should have constant practice in what has once been learnt.

(iii) Much time should not elapse between one practice and the
subsequent one. Delayed use or long disuse may cause forgetfulness.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

(iv) Law of exercise cannot be applied quantitatively, because other

factors also come in. So learning is not directly proportional to the
amount of exercise. Interest and purpose coupled with repetition
make repetition more effective. Thorndike himself revised his views on
‘Law of Disuse’. He finds that disuse may play an important part as
dissatisfaction with a particular job. It is interest and satisfaction that
comes in the success and repetition of successful response which help
in the selection of desired response.

Law of Effect:
Thorndike defines it as follows:
“When a modifiable connection between a situation and
response is made and is accompanied or followed by a
satisfying state of affairs that connection’s strength is
increased, but when made and accompanied by an annoying
state of affairs its strength is decreased”.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
In simpler words, it means that a response which gives achievement of
the goal and thus provides satisfaction, will be stamped in, while those
which are accompanied by dissatisfaction will be stamped out. In
short, the feeling or the emotional state affects learning.

For instance, when the child solve, questions correctly he feels

encouraged to do more. But if he fails repeatedly, he does not make
subsequent attempt. Some students fail one or two times in the
Matriculation Examination.

The stagnate and do not succeed at all. It is commonly said, ‘nothing

succeeds like success’. The boy who stands for school council election
and succeeds, gets motivated to stand again and again. Another pupil
failing in the elections twice may not stand again. This success and
failure condition the learner to a large degree.

Educational Implication:
(i) As a failure is accompanied by a discouraging emotional state, it
should be avoided. The evaluation system should be so modified that
nobody is called ‘a failure’. A student may pass in 4 subjects out of 7.
He should be given a certificate to that effect, and encouraged to
appear again in the other three subjects.

(ii) Reward and recognition play a great role in encouraging the pupil.
Due recognition should be given to good achievement, so that the
pupil is cheered up to march forward.

(iii) Educational guidance should be provided to all the pupils, so that

no pupil become a misfit in any subject or educational course. It is
desirable to enable everyone to experience success by guiding him to
pursue the course suits him. It should be possible to adjust the pupils
and their work so that they will experience an optimum of amount of
success.

(iv) Punishments should be avoided as far as possible. Punishment

produces a negative effect, and it causes discouragement and it
eliminates the response in due course. The most effective and
healthful way of establishing desirable behaviour is to reinforce it with
a feeling of satisfaction and encouragement.

(v) Interest is directly connected, with law of effect. Pupils get

satisfaction in things which interest them. Interest causes satisfaction,
satisfaction promotes learning, better learning gives higher
satisfaction and thus the cycle goes on. Pupils prefer that which is
pleasant and interesting to them, while selecting books, subjects,
activities, mates, games, food and clothing. Thus the behaviour is
controlled by interest and satisfaction.

(vi) Memory is also directly related to this law. Pleasant things are
remembered better than unpleasant things. What interests most,
which is vital for us, what gives us great satisfaction, is remembered
the most. The pupil forgets the home-task because it is unpleasant job
for him.

Limitations of the Law:

In certain cases the law fails. We sometimes remember the most
unpleasant incidents of our life most vividly. We are not able to avoid
the remembrance, because of the unpleasant nature. Sometimes the
punishment given causes better learning. We can stimulate a child to
learn the good spellings, but how to curb his bad spellings? If we say
that rebuke or punishment will discourage him to learn, then he might
not learn the right spellings at all.

Law of Readiness:
“When a person feels ready to act or to learn, he acts or learns more
effectively and with greater satisfaction than when not ready’. Before
actual learning, one must be mentally prepared; one’s mind, must be
mentally-set.

Educational Implications:
(i) Readiness means desire to do a job. In the absence of desire
learning cannot be effective. Hence the teacher must arouse the
interest or readiness of the pupils. In teaching any topic, he must tap
their previous knowledge, arouse interest for the new topic through
suitable questions and then announce the aim of the new lesson. So
‘motivation’ is one of the important step in lesson-planning.
(ii) Curiosity is essential for learning. Hence the teacher should
arouse curiosity for learning, so that the pupils feel ready to imbibe the
new experiences. Some teachers do not prepare their pupils
psychologically for their lessons. They dole out the knowledge they
possess in a mechanical way. The teacher should, before taking up the
new lesson arouse interest and curiosity by making the problems real
and concrete. Abstract elements not connected with real- life
situations should be avoided.
Secondary or Subordinate Laws of Learning:
Thorndike gave the following Secondary laws also:
1. Law of Primacy.

2. Law of Recency.

3. Law of Intensity of Stimulus.

4. Law of Multiple Response.

5. Law of Set Attitude.

6. Law of Analogy and Assimilation.

7. Law of Associative Shifting.

8. Law of Partial Activity.

1. Law of Primacy:
‘Learning that takes place in the beginning is the best and lasting’.
Usually we say, first impression is the best. Hence the pupils should
make the right start, and be most serious even from the first day. The
learning on the first day is most vivid and strong. The teacher also
should be most serious on the first day of teaching. He must impress
his students on the very first day.

2. Law of Recency:
‘Recent acts are lasting’. We remember those things better which are
recent. Hence a pupil should revise his entire course just before the
examination. Without revision, he is apt to forget even the best
assimilated matter. The revision just before the examination helps
him.

3. Law of Intensity of stimulus:

‘If a stimulus is strong, the response will be strong, and vice-versa.’
The student who has the dash or the enthusiasm makes a greater
progress and achievement. The weak-willed student achieves less. The
more serious a student, the greater his achievement. From this point
of view, examinations bear a positive effect on learning, in so far as
they present an intense stimulus to study. The justification of internal
assessment throughout the session is the same. Hence, the pupils
must have a stimulus to learn throughout the academic session.

4. Law of Multiple Response:

Confronted with a new situation the organism responds in a variety of
ways arriving at the correct response.

5. Law of Set Attitude:

The learner performs the task well if he has his attitude set in the task.

6. Law of Analogy and assimilation:

The organism makes responses by comparison or analogy and
assimilation. When learner finds the similarities and dissimilarities in
the lesson with daily experiences he earns better. Hence teaching must
be correlated with life experiences.

7. Law of Associative Shifting:

According to this law we can get any response, from the learner of
which he is capable, associated with any situation to which he is
sensitive.

8. Law of Partial activity:

This law states that teaching should be done in parts. It is more true in
the case of children’s education.
Rewards and Punishment
 
Disciplines > Warfare > The Six Secret Teachings > 1.11 Rewards and Punishment
Teaching set  | Observed lessons | Discussion | See also
 

Teaching set
Civil Secret Teachings 1.11 (11)

Observed lessons
 Reward and punishment sends signals not just to the person but all who know about this
action. If more know, then more will respond to the signals.
 Reward indicates trust.
 Punishment indicates a need for certainty.
 The rewards and punishments given by the ruler are far more significant than those given
by lesser people.

Discussion
Reward and punishment are two sides of the same coin. They are both forms of extrinsic
motivation, which can be rather pernicious in the way it appears to work at the time.
In conditioning, punishment stops action while reward encourages it. Yet many use
punishment with the intent of persuading people what they should do. This is one reason why
punishment can be ineffective. It can also cause reaction or other forms of coping that easily
becomes dysfunctional.
Intrinsic motivation, on the other hand, seeks to build deep personal motivation through
inspiration and other more difficult forms of motivating people. The main problem for many
leaders is that intrinsic motivation is harder, requiring more time and skill. Yet done well it is
far more powerful.
In general, the Civil Secret Teachings puts far more emphasis on intrinsic motivation, which
illustrates the maturity of the author, even though it was written many centuries ago.

Abstract
Go to:

Introduction
Reward and punishment are potent modulators of human and animal behavior (Thorndike,
1911; Pavlov, 1927; Skinner, 1938; Sutton and Barto, 1998). However, despite the great increase
in knowledge in the past two decades of the neural basis of the reward effect (Schultz, 2002), and
that of punishment to a lesser extent, we lack clear data about how reward and punishment
influence the learning of specific behaviors, apart from those in classical and instrumental
conditioning, and how this might be mediated at a neural level (Delgado, 2007). To address this
issue, we focused on procedural learning, a distinct learning behavior that is the foundation of
many of our motor skills and perhaps other functions such as cognitive, category and perceptual
learning (Squire, 2004). The fact that procedural learning is thought to be largely dependent on
the basal ganglia (Willingham et al., 2002), which also mediate the effect of reward and
punishment (Schultz, 2002), make it an ideal behavior to study.
To test the influence of reward and punishment on procedural learning, we used a modified
version of the serial reaction time (SRT) task (Nissen and Bullemer, 1987), a simple and robust
experimental probe (Robertson, 2007), during which continuous modulation of motor output was
required and reinforcement and non-reinforcement learning were dissociated. We opted to use
monetary reward (and punishment) because it is a strong modulator of human behavior and has
clear effects on brain activity (Breiter et al., 2001; Delgado et al., 2003). As in the original SRT
task, subjects pressed one of four buttons with the right hand when instructed by a visual display.
Trials were presented in blocks in which the lights were illuminated either randomly or,
unbeknownst to the subject, on the basis of a 12-element repeating sequence. All subjects first
performed several blocks of random trials to minimize the effects of learning the general
visuomotor behavior on later blocks, and to establish an individual criterion response time (cRT)
on which subsequent reward and punishment would be based. Subjects were then randomly
assigned to reward, punishment, and control groups. Because we used reaction time (RT) as an
index of learning, subjects were, therefore, rewarded for faster responses, which were easiest to
generate through learning the repeating sequence. To control for a potential distractor effect of
the incentives on the learning process, several additional blocks without reward or punishment
were presented after the trials with incentives. The blocks were presented in the order outlined
in Figure1A-B. In the current report we describe the impact of reward and punishment
behavioral results using a large cohort of subjects and the neural correlates of this behavior in a
smaller number of different subject on whom functional imaging was also performed.
 Open in a separate window

Figure 1

Behavioral results: (A) Time course of response time gains and, (B), error rates in subject groups during
task performance. The mean (± SEM) response time gain for each block, relative to individual subjects'
cRT, in the reward [yellow (n=21)], punishment [blue (n=24)] and control [black (n=19)] groups. The
gray hatching indicates the blocks during which incentives were used. Random and sequence blocks were
presented either with, (R and S), or without, (r and s), monetary incentives, respectively. (C) The absolute
gain in response time due to learning in subject groups. The mean (± SEM) of the absolute response gain
in the transfer portion of the task (blocks 12-15) was derived by comparing RT in the sequence block
(block 14) to the mean of the adjacent blocks (blocks 12,13, and 16) for each group. The difference
between the reward and the other two groups was significant (p =0.003). Error bars indicate standard
error of mean.
Go to:

Materials and Methods

Subjects
In the behavioral study we tested 91 healthy human subjects (female= 69) (mean 21.7 ± 3.5
years); in the functional imaging component, we studied 41 right-handed subjects (22 female; 21
years ± 2.58). All subjects were of similar socioeconomic backgrounds recruited from the
University community, and gave informed consent to participate in the study which was
approved by the local Institutional Review Board.

Behavioral task
The task (Fig. 1) was a modification of the original SRTT of Nissen and Bullemer (Nissen and
Bullemer, 1987). Subjects were presented with four visual stimuli arranged horizontally. Each
stimulus was associated with one of the four fingers of the right hand; illumination of the visual
stimulus indicated the finger to be moved. Subjects used a key-press device to respond as quickly
as possible when instructed by the visual display. Stimuli were presented in blocks of 96 trials in
either a pseudorandom or repeating 8 × 12-element sequence with an 800 ms inter-stimulus
interval. In order to minimize awareness, the sequence was constrained (Willingham et al.,
2000). Contrary to the original SRT task, random and sequence blocks were presented both with,
(R-blocks and S-blocks), or without, (r-blocks and s-blocks), monetary incentives, respectively.
For the purposes of the current experiment, we define reward and punishment in terms of
positive and negative monetary incentives. Of the 91 original subjects, 25 subjects were excluded
because they developed explicit knowledge of the sequence (see below), and a further two
subjects were eliminated because did not perform the test properly, leaving on cohort of 64
subjects. At the beginning of the experiment, subjects performed four practice r-blocks; we then
calculated a criterion response time (cRT) for each subject based on their median RT in the last
of the four blocks. Subjects were then randomized into reward (n=21), punishment (n=24) and
control (n=19) groups. It is important to note, that since learning occurs implicitly in the SRT
task, reward or punishment could not be applied directly in this paradigm. However learning in
the SRT task leads to faster reaction time and this is usually used as a behavioural index of
learning in this task. We therefore rewarded / punished subjects according to the change
(increase/decrease) of their individual reaction time. Those in the reward group were informed
that they would be rewarded (+ 4 cents) for each trial for which their RT was less then cRT; the
penalty group were penalized (− 4 cents) if their RT was greater than their cRT. Rewarded
subjects started with $0, while punished group were given $38. Because of normalization of
incentives to base performance both rewarded and punished subjects ended up with an average of
$21-22, while the control subjects received a fixed payment of $23. The incentive schedule also
controlled for motivation between the two groups. Subjects received ongoing feedback of their
performance both through an incrementing (or decrementing) counter displaying their current
monetary position displayed on the screen and also by the color of the visual stimuli (green and
red stimuli indicated that the RT on the preceding trial was less or greater than the cRT,
respectively). Since learning of the sequence enabled subjects to reduce their RT significantly
compared to the cRT, those in the reward group were rewarded for learning, while the penalty
group were punished if they did not learn. Control subjects were presented with an equal number
of red and green stimuli and told that the color was of no significance. To control for the
potential distractor effect of the counter in the incentive groups, the controls saw an identical
tally that kept a count of either red or green lights. After the initial practice session (four
consecutive r-blocks) the full experiment comprised 15 blocks in the following order: r-R-R-R-
R-S-S-S-S-R-S-r-r-s-r (R = random blocks; S = sequence blocks; upper case, blocks with
incentives in rewarded and punished groups; lower case, blocks without incentives). The color of
the feedback visual stimuli was counter-balanced across subjects (Fig. S1). Blocks were
separated by 30 second breaks. Of the 64 subjects that are the basis of the behavioral component
of the current report, the first 27 subjects performed only the first 11 blocks since the remaining
4 blocks were added later to measure the knowledge transfer in the absence of incentives in the
different groups.
A different group of 41 (reward, n=11; punished, n=13; control, n=17) subjects was used for the
imaging experiment of whom 32 (reward, n=11; punished, n=13; control, n=17) learned the
sequence implicitly. The behavioral paradigm was identical to that of the behavioral experiment,
with the exception of the monetary incentives which were adjusted as follows: reward group
started with $0 and were rewarded with 10 cents for every correct response; in the punished
group 20 cents were deducted for each incorrect response from a base of $95; the average final
payment for the rewarded and punished groups was $55, which was also the fixed payment given
to the control group.

Explicit Learning
Immediately after performing both the behavioral and the imaging experiments, all subjects were
tested for explicit knowledge of the sequence. The participants were told that the stimuli might
have appeared in a repeating sequence and were asked to reproduce the sequence in a free recall
task. They were allowed to use the key-press device if they thought it might be helpful. Subjects
who could not recall anything were encouraged to guess. If a participant could reproduce a
correct string of more than 4 consecutive items of the sequence, learning was considered to be
explicit and the subject excluded from the analysis. We used a relatively conservative measure of
explicit knowledge (Willingham and Goedert-Eschmann, 1999) to ensure that the effects
described were attributable primarily to procedural knowledge. To limit the number of subjects
excluded from the fMRI analysis because of explicit learning, we used a slightly less
conservative measure and the learning was considered to be explicit if a subject could reproduce
a correct string of more than 5 consecutive items of the sequence.

fMRI acquisition and pre-processing.

Imaging parameters
Image acquisition was done with a 3 Tesla Whole Body MR System (MAGNETOM Trio,
Siemens Medical Systems, Erlangen, Germany) using a Siemens head coil. High-resolution
(1mm iso-voxel) T1-weighted-3d-FLASH sagittal sequences (160 slices per slab, FOV
256×256mm, TR=20ms, TE=4.7ms, flip angle=22 degree, slice thickness=1 mm) was first
acquired to enable localization of functional images. Thereafter whole brain fMRI was
performed using an echo-planar imaging (EPI) sequence measuring blood oxygenation level
dependent (BOLD) signal. A total of 30 functional slices per volume were acquired for all
subjects, in all runs. These slices had a thickness of 3mm and they were acquired in the
transverse plane (matrix size 64×64), field of view (FOV) 192×192 mm, with a 33% gap. A
complete scan of the whole brain was acquired in 2560 ms (TR), flip angle=80 degree, TE=30
ms and a total number of 611 volumes were acquired for the whole experiment.

Preprocessing of fMRI data

Brain Voyager (Brain Innovation B.V.) software was used for fMRI data preprocessing and
analysis. The functional bi-dimensional images of every subject were preprocessed to correct for
motion artifacts (movements less than 3mm in any plane), for differences in slice scan time
acquisition and for temporal linear trends. Then, these functional images were used to
reconstruct the 3D functional volume for every subject and every run. Next, we performed
spatial smoothing of the functional data using a Gaussian FWHM (full width at half maximum)
kernel of 7 mm. The 3D functional volume was subsequently aligned with the corresponding 3D
anatomical volume and both of them were normalized to standard Talairach space.

Statistical Analyses

Behavioral data
Statistical analyses were done using SPSS 11.0. Response time gains in individual subjects were
calculated by deducting of the RT of each trial from the cRT for that subject. Since RT gains
were negative values and not normally distributed, we added 1000 to each value and did a
logarithmic transformation before any statistical calculations. However, when differences in RT
or RT gains are stated or when displayed in graphs, the original, non-transformed scale was used.
Generalized linear models (GLM) were used for comparison of different conditions among
groups. The threshold for significance was 0.05 adjusted for multiple comparisons, if necessary.
To determine the extent of learning in each of the three behavioral groups (reward, punishment,
control), we used a custom orthogonal contrast between the sequence block (14) and surrounding
random blocks (13 and 15) for which we used the following contrast weights ½, −1, ½ for blocks
13, 14 and 15 respectively.
fMRI data
GLM models were used for voxel-wise data analysis. A block design protocol was used to
demonstrate the main effects: the ‘effect of procedural learning’ for all subjects, specifically we
regrouped the 15 blocks into four regressors [random and sequence, with (R,S) and without (r,s)
incentive] and the baseline in rewarded and punished subject groups. We did an additional block-
based analysis to address the neural basis of the ‘performance effect’ using a GLM that included
each block (total 15) as an independent regressor and contrasted the first non-incentive block (r;
block 1) with the first incentive block (R; block 2). An event-related protocol was used to assess
the influence of incentives by testing the difference between trials types (rewarded, punished,
control) and differences within types relating to the presence or absence of incentive. The event-
related analysis was performed for blocks 2-11 and each behavioral event (800 ms) was
classified according to our experimental manipulation (reward, punishment, or control) and the
performance of the subject (green or red lights). These predictors were entered as fixed factors in
a mixed GLM model, with subjects as random factors (to control for possible differences among
subjects).
The statistical parameters of these models were computed voxel-wise for the entire brain and
activation maps were computed for various contrasts between the predictors. The criteria used
for activation maps we generated were: cluster size of 10 adjacent voxels (to demonstrate the
performance effect, the cluster size was raised to 100 adjacent voxels) and a statistical threshold
for the cluster of p<0.001. The output of these models was selectively used for region of interest
analysis both of the learning and the performance effects using SPSS.
We performed two additional voxel-wise analyses. The first analysis (Table S3) was to
determine the brain areas that related to the enhanced learning in the reward group (punished
group as control). We first applied the main effects of the block design model as a mask
(uncorrected p<0.05 voxels > 108 mm3) within which we tested the interaction between Learning
and Group (t=3.174; p<0.005; voxels > 108 mm3); Group was defined as reward/punishment, and
Learning as sequence (S blocks)/baseline. The second analysis (Table S5) was to detect the
functional activation associated with the ‘performance effect’ in the punished group. A GLM
was built that included each block (total 15) as an independent regressor. The normalized CRT
[criterion response time; mean 0, SD 1, only for first 2 blocks] was included in this model to
determine the neural basis of the ‘performance effect’.
Go to:

Results
As mentioned above, we first present the data from a behavioral study on a large cohort of
subjects followed by the data from functional imaging on a different but smaller group
performing the same task.

Behavioral Effects of Reward and Punishment

In the behavioral study, we tested 91 subjects, of whom 25 developed explicit knowledge of the
sequence and two did not perform the experiment properly, and were excluded from further
analyses. The remaining 64 subjects were divided among the reward (n = 21), punishment (n =
24) and control (n = 19) groups. Learning in the SRT task is generally assessed by RT gain, or in
some cases by the error rate, in sequence blocks compared to random blocks (Fig. 1). There were
three main findings in the behavioral study. First, there was a strong non learning-related
performance effect in the punishment group. This effect was manifested by a sharp and
significant (pair-wise comparisons using Bonferroni test, p<0.001) 19.6 ms drop in RT in the
punishment group during random blocks immediately following the implementation of penalties
(Fig. 1A: blocks 1-5). Since there was no sequence to be learned, the RT decrease must have
been due to a pure performance effect provoked by punishment and not related to learning. A
comparable effect was not seen in the reward group. The second finding was a differential
learning effect in the three groups [Group X block interaction; F(8,44128)=3.39, p=0.001] during the
learning phase (Fig. 1A: blocks 6-9). At the end of the sequence blocks, the reward and control
groups showed a significantly greater (pair-wise comparisons using Bonferroni test, p<0.001)
decrease in RT than the punishment group. However, the relatively modest RT gain in the
punished group during sequence blocks may have been due to a floor effect as a result of the
already low RT from improvement in performance in the preceding random blocks. In order to
test for possible floor effects and also to eliminate potential distractor effects that might have
unpredictable consequences on the expression of learning (Frensch et al., 1999), we added a
transfer phase, without reward or punishment, in 37 of the 64 subjects performing the task (Fig.
1A: blocks 12-15). Using these transfer blocks, sequence learning, was estimated by a custom
orthogonal contrast between the sequence block (14) and surrounding random blocks (13 and 15)
for which we used the following contrast weights ½, −1, ½ for blocks 13, 14 and 15 respectively.
The results of this contrast showed that learning occurred in all groups. However, the reward
group learned more than either of the other groups, (RT savings: reward= 25.9 ms, control = 13.0
ms, punishment= 14.5 ms) and this difference (Fig. 1C) was significant
[F(2,12232)=6.07, p=0.002, MSE=0.006], in which the 95% confidence interval of the rewarded
group did not overlap with the confidence interval of either of the other two groups. Finally, the
motivational effect of the incentives, based on a comparable speed-error trade-off profile (Fig.
1B), was similar in both groups but was different from that in the controls
[F(2,75795)=126.19, p<0.001, MSE=0.092]. The error rate, however, may also be used as an index of
learning and, as expected, decreased during sequence blocks and was strongest in the reward
group in the transfer blocks (12-15) though this difference did not reach statistical significance.
The behavioral experiment, therefore, showed that only reward but not punishment enhances the
implicit learning of sequences. This finding is at odds with previous studies of reward and
punishment on learning, which, however, were generally confined to associative learning tasks.
This result provided us with an opportunity to test the neural substrate of the reward and
punishment effects during procedural learning.

Neural Substrates of Learning and Performance

We studied another group of naïve subjects using fMRI during the performance of an almost
identical behavioral task to the one described above and performed and detailed analysis on 41
subjects of whom 32 (reward, n =10; punished, n =11; control, n =11) did not acquire explicit
knowledge of the sequence. Using data from the implicit learning cohort, we confirmed the
previous behavioral results (Fig. S2). Specifically, we found a differential learning effect in the
three groups [Group X block interaction; F(6,11145)=2.42, p=0.024] during the learning phase. The
greatest RT gain occurred in the rewarded, followed by the punished and control groups (pair-
wise comparisons using Bonferroni test, p<0.001). The rewarded group had a gain of 27.12 ms.,
whereas the punished and control groups had significantly smaller, but similar gains (13.84 ms.
and 15.13 ms., respectively). These results suggest that the rewarded group learned more than
either of the other groups, when provided with incentives. There was a strong non learning-
related performance effect of incentive in the punished and rewarded groups when the random
blocks with incentive were compared to those without [interaction effect: F(8,13966)=8.15; p<0.001] .
Similar to the purely behavioral study, the imaged subjects who were punished showed the
greatest RT gain (29.16 ms) when compared with the other two groups (pair-wise comparisons
using Bonferroni test, p<0.001). However, the rewarded group also showed significantly greater
RT gains as compared with the control group (17.14 ms. versus 4.9 ms.), albeit smaller than
those of the punished group (pair-wise comparisons using Bonferroni test, p<0.001).
For the functional imaging analysis, we first examined the neural substrate of reward and
punishment in all subjects over the whole experiment by comparing activation in the trials with
and without incentives, separately for the reward and punishment groups (Fig. 2 and Table S1)
and focused primarily on sub-cortical activation. This contrast yielded an increase in activation
in the dorsal striatum, in the nucleus accumbens and amygdala, as well as in prefrontal cortex in
the rewarded group (Fig. 2A,B). The punished group, as might be expected, showed quite a
different pattern with increased activation during the punished trials in the insula bilaterally (Fig.
2C) and in portions of prefrontal cortex. Interestingly, the lack of punishment was associated
with a relative increase in activation in the reward-related portions of the dorsal striatum. The
comparison of activation associated with the randomly presented red and green stimuli in the
control group showed no subcortical activation.

Figure 2

Effect of reward and punishment on brain activity: (A,B) Event-related averaging in the rewarded group
(n=11) when rewarded trials (green stimuli) were compared to trials without reward (red stimuli) there
was significant (p<0.001) activation in the Striatum on both sides as well as the N. Accumbens on the left.
(C) Trials with punishment compared to trials without in the punished group (n=13) result in a decreased
BOLD signal in the striatum bilaterally (activation above baseline during neutral stimuli), and an increase
in the insula bilaterally. There was no activation in these regions comparing red and green stimuli (both
without incentives) in the controls (n=17).
We next determined the areas responsible for procedural learning in all subjects (across groups)
by comparing the activity during sequence blocks to the activity during random blocks. This
analysis showed a significant increase in BOLD signal during the learning phase in the putamen
bilaterally (Fig. 3A,B) as well as in the pontine gray matter and in the dentate nucleus on the
ipsilateral side (Table S2) indicating that these areas are implicated in the procedural learning
process. In order to evaluate the effect of incentives more specifically in these areas important
for procedural learning, we plotted (Fig. 3C), for each implicit learning group separately, the
changes in the BOLD signal in the putamen (left and right combined) during the following three
trial types: (i) trials in which no incentive was possible (named ‘neutral’ during r & s blocks), (ii)
incentive trials in R & S blocks (green trials for rewarded and red for punished group), and (iii)
non-incentive trials during R & S blocks (red trials for rewarded and green for punished group).
We then analyzed the BOLD signal in these ROIs using a GLM model with group (control,
rewarded, punished) and color of the stimulus (neutral, green, red) in the current trial as
independent factors. Pair-wise comparisons between various groups were assessed using Sidak
tests, adjusting for the number of multiple comparisons. We found a significant main effect of
group [F(2,1016)=32.59, p<0.001, MSE=0.093], colour of the stimulus
[F(2,1016)=18.17, p<0.001, MSE=0.093] and a significant interaction effect
[F(2,1016)=4.41, p<0.001, MSE=0.093] between the independent factors. Sidak tests for pair-wise
comparisons showed that, overall, the BOLD signal change in the putamen was different in all
three groups: it was the highest for the rewarded group, followed by controls and then by the
punished group (all differences significant at p<0.05, adjusted for multiple comparisons). In the
reward group, there was a significant increase in BOLD signal (Sidak test significant at p<0.001)
for trials that were rewarded compared to non-rewarded trials or those in which no reward
(incentive) was possible. In the punished group, the BOLD signal change during incentive trials
(i.e. punishment; red stimuli) was not different than neutral trials (Sidak test: p=0.386), but it was
significantly less (Sidak test: p<0.005) than that during non-incentive trials (green trials). It can
be seen that the colour of the stimulus had no effect on striatal activation in the control group.
Furthermore, there was no significant difference in the BOLD signal during non-incentive trials
between control and rewarded groups (red trials) or between control and punished groups (green
trials), indicating a stable baseline activation when executing the task without incentives. We
further confirmed the findings of this RO1 approach using a voxel-based analysis of the
interaction between Learning and Group (see Table S3). The voxel-wise analysis also showed an
interaction effect in the middle frontal gyrus in an area consistent with the location of dorsal
premotor cortex, which suggests that the effect we documented in basal ganglia is transmitted to
the cortex thus facilitating changes in motor output.

Open in a separate window

Figure 3
Activation in areas critical for procedural learning. (A,B) A comparison of sequence blocks with random
blocks over all groups in all subjects with implicit learning (n=41) showed a significant (p < 0.001,
uncorrected) increase in activation during motor learning in the corpus striatum (putamen and globus
pallidus) bilaterally. (C) More specific analysis of the striatal region in each group during implicit
learning showed that in the rewarded group there was a significant (p < 0.001; Sidak tests adjusted for
multiple comparisons) change in BOLD signal during trials in which subjects were rewarded (purple bar)
compared to non-rewarded trials (grey bar) or trials in which no reward could be obtained (black bar). In
contrast, the BOLD signal in the punishment group during punished trials (purple bar) and non-punished
trials (grey bar) did not significantly diverge from that during trials in blocks where no punishment could
be obtained (black bar). The difference between trials with punishment and trials without punishment is
however significant, (p < 0.005; Sidak tests adjusted for multiple comparisons). The trials in the control
group show that there was no effect of stimulus color (square on each bar). The color of the visual
stimulus for particular trial types is indicated at the midpoint of each bar. Error bars show the 95%
confidence interval.
Although in the behavioral experiment punishment showed no effect on the process of learning,
it led to an immediate performance effect expressed by a decrease in reaction time immediately
following the introduction of punishment (Fig. 1A) during the random blocks. To examine the
neural substrate of this performance effect, we compared the BOLD response in the last block of
random stimuli without incentives to the first block with incentives (Table S4). In the punished
group this contrast showed an increase in activation in the insula, and in the inferior frontal gyrus
and hippocampus, in addition to other areas (Fig. 4). Among the areas activated in this contrast
only the change in activation in the insula was correlated (Pearson r=−0.54; p<0.005; n=26) with
the performance change in punished subjects. Although the rewarded subjects also showed a
performance effect this did not correlate with changes in insula activation
(Pearson r=0.001; p=0.997; n=22). We confirmed the performance related activation of the
insula in a separate voxel-wise analysis (see Table S5)
 Open in a separate window

Figure 4

Neural substrate of change in performance. (A) Activation in right insula, in punished subjects only,
following the contrast between Block 2 (R) random, with incentives (green and red stimuli combined),
and Block 1 random (r), without incentives. Statistical threshold was t(12) ≥ 5.7 with a minimum cluster
size of 100 voxels (1×1×1 mm resolution). (B,C) The correlation between changes in BOLD signal and
reaction time relative to CRT for both Block 1 and 2 combined for the rewarded (B) and the punished (C)
groups. In each panel, each subject has a pair of points, one from Block 1 and one from Block 2.
Go to:

Discussion
Our results point to fundamental differences between the effects of reward and punishment on
behavior and to their quite distinct neural substrates. In addition, we extend the relevance of
reward-based learning in the basal ganglia to the learning of habits (Packard and Knowlton,
2002) and skills and sequences (Houk et al., 1995; Berns and Sejnowski, 1998; Suri and Schultz,
1998).
The first issue to consider is whether reward and punishment have similar effects on behavior.
We designed the opponent behaviors in our experiment as they might be constructed in every
day life. Our objective was to encourage fast responses to the visual stimuli; therefore, we
rewarded the desired behavior in one group and punished the undesired behavior in another.
Both manipulations had a measurable effect on behavior and deciding which is preferable
depends on whether one is interested in short term changes in performance without enhancement
of learning or longer term changes in learning itself. Only the reward group showed enhanced
implicit learning of the motor sequence; though the punished group also learned they did not do
any better than the control subjects. The lack of an effect of punishment on learning, though
there were clear effects on other aspects of behavior (see Fig.1), was surprising and would not
necessarily have been predicted on the basis of the reinforcement learning literature. B.F.
Skinner regarded punishment as a ‘questionable technique’, speculated as to whether it actually
worked, and stressed the fact that even when it did, its effects tended to be short lived (Skinner,
1953). Of course, we recognize that our results are only directly applicable to procedural learning
paradigms and may well not generalize to the very wide range of behaviors for which reward and
punishment are used as modulators. Nevertheless, procedural learning is an important aspect of
learning and the data we present might well be applicable to the rehabilitation of motor function
in patients with various forms of motor disability including those following a stroke.
The second question is whether our results tell us anything about the interaction among positive
and negative incentives (reward and punishment), motivation, and learning. Although this issue
has been dealt with extensively in the literature on Pavlovian conditioning (Dickinson and
Balleine, 2002) it has not been clear whether reward and punishment interact with separate
motivational systems that have different neurochemical and neuroanatomical substrates and
produce differential behavioral effects (Bindra, 1974; Dickinson and Dearing, 1979; Dayan and
Balleine, 2002) and the question has never been addressed in the context of implicit procedural
learning. The behavioral task we used enabled us to separate the effects of reward and
punishment on motor performance from those on motor learning. The fact that there were
qualitatively distinct effects on these behavioral measures suggests that reward and punishment
may actually engage qualitatively different motivational systems. However, it is not clear
whether there were quantitative differences in motivation between these groups. The similarity
of the RT-error trade-off in both groups (Fig. 1) might be interpreted as indicating similar
motivation, however, a more parsimonious explanation is that they used similar criteria for this
trade-off. The negativity bias (Taylor, 1991) in the decision-making literature would suggest that
the motivation might be stronger in the punished group, given the equal monetary value of
reward and punishment, making it all the more remarkable that the rewarded subjects clearly
learned more. If reward and punishment actually access separate motivation systems, then one
would expect that this should be evident in the underlying neural substrate. In the current study,
the activity in the dorsal and ventral striatum that related to the reward per se replicates previous
findings (McClure et al., 2003; O'Doherty et al., 2003; O'Doherty et al., 2004) and most likely
represents the neural correlate of the dopaminergic neurons coding a prediction error signal in
addition to being consistent with the two process account of reinforcement learning (Montague et
al., 1996; Sutton and Barto, 1998). By contrast, punishment led to activation predominantly in
the inferior frontal gyrus and in the insula, the latter being the most consistently activated area in
a variety of studies relating to punishment (Elliott et al., 2000; Sanfey et al., 2003; Daw et al.,
2006). It has been hypothesized that punishment, even when it is associated with striatal
activation (Seymour et al., 2004), does not operate through the dopaminergic system (Ungless et
al., 2004) but is more likely mediated through the serotonergic system originating in the median
raphe nucleus (Daw et al., 2002). The end result of activating such a motivational system in our
case was the change in performance we documented with which the insula was the only area to
be significantly correlated. The difference between the results of this and many other studies is
that we were able to correlate the neural substrates of reward and punishment with qualitatively
different behavior outcomes suggesting that these modulators might indeed operate through
different motivational systems.
The final issue to consider is how the results contribute to the our knowledge of the role of the
basal ganglia in procedural learning. There is a general consensus that the basal ganglia are an
important substrate for procedural learning (Grafton et al., 1995) (Rauch et al.,
1997; Willingham et al., 2002) particularly when learning becomes more established (Poldrack et
al., 2005; Seidler et al., 2005). The location of activation associated with learning in the current
study, the dorsal striatum (putamen), is similar to that identified by others (Poldrack et al.,
2005; Seidler et al., 2005). The dorsal striatum is involved in learning stimulus-action-reward
associations during instrumental learning (Haruno et al., 2004; O'Doherty et al., 2004). In our
experiment, the association between stimulus and action was deterministic, therefore the activity
in the putamen cannot be related to learning the stimulus-action association. Similarly, because
activity in the putamen was higher in the sequence compared to the random blocks irrespective
reward delivery, this activity is not solely related to action-reward association. Our data suggest
that reward facilitates procedural motor learning within the motor system by modulating the
activity of the putamen which has extensive connections to premotor areas. It is likely that the
effect is translated into an improvement in motor learning by a dopamine-induced potentiation of
corticostriatal synapses in the striatum, similar to that which occurs following direct stimulation
of the substantia nigra (Reynolds et al., 2001). In the same context, our results may also be
relevant to patients with Parkinson disease, who show some deficits in procedural learning tasks,
but who are disabled primarily because of an inability to produce coherent sequences of over-
learned movements. It is possible that the lack of dopamine in these patients results in an
impairment of an intrinsic reward system (Mazzoni et al., 2007), based on an internal
representation of motor performance, thus disrupting the type of corticostriatal facilitation we
demonstrated, and thereby affecting the performance of sequential movements.

The impact of reward and punishment on skill

learning depends on task demands
 Adam Steel
 , Edward H. Silson
 , Charlotte J. Stagg
  & Chris I. Baker

Scientific Reports volume6, Article number: 36056 (2016) | Download Citation

Abstract

Reward and punishment motivate behavior, but it is unclear exactly how they impact
skill performance and whether the effect varies across skills. The present study
investigated the effect of reward and punishment in both a sequencing skill and a
motor skill context. Participants trained on either a sequencing skill (serial reaction
time task) or a motor skill (force-tracking task). Skill knowledge was tested
immediately after training, and again 1 hour, 24–48 hours, and 30 days after training.
We found a dissociation of the effects of reward and punishment on the tasks,
primarily reflecting the impact of punishment. While punishment improved serial
reaction time task performance, it impaired force-tracking task performance. In
contrast to prior literature, neither reward nor punishment benefitted memory retention,
arguing against the common assumption that reward ubiquitously benefits skill
retention. Collectively, these results suggest that punishment impacts skilled behavior
more than reward in a complex, task dependent fashion.

Introduction

Reward and punishment, including biological reinforcers such as food, water, or pain,
are important motivators for both human and animal behavior. The majority of
neuroscience research has focused on studying the effects of reward and punishment
on decision-making1,2,3. However, in recent years interest in using reward and
punishment to augment motor skill learning has surged 4,5,6,7,8,9 raising the enticing
possibility that valenced feedback could be implemented in rehabilitation settings to
improve physical therapy outcomes 10,11,12,13. However, the variation in methodologies,
performance metrics, and retention timescales used across different studies make
establishing general principles challenging.

The present study examines the impact of reward and punishment on two different skill
learning tasks: the serial reaction time task (SRTT), a sequencing task wherein
participants press buttons in response to a stimulus appearing on a screen 14; and the
force tracking task (FTT) 15,16,17, a motor task wherein participants squeeze a force
transducer to follow a cursor on screen (Fig. 1A–D). The two tasks were implemented
in as similar a manner as possible as possible to facilitate comparison between them. In
an initial training session, participants trained on either the SRTT or FTT and received
valenced feedback (monetary reward, monetary punishment, or motivated control [see
methods]) based on their performance (calculated as [Mean Reaction Time/Accuracy
per block] for SRTT; mean distance from the target per block in the FTT). In both
tasks probe trials, during which stimuli were presented in either a fixed or a random
order, were presented before and after training. General skill learning was assessed by
comparing initial performance to performance after training, regardless of the probe
block type. Sequence-specific skill learning was distinguished from general skill
learning by comparing performance on fixed versus random probe blocks. Skill
retention was then probed in the absence of feedback at 1 hour, 24 hours, and 30 days
after completion of the training.

Figure 1
(A) Experimental design. Seventy-two participants were divided between two
skill learning tasks: a task that demands integration of multiple memory
systems, the serial reaction time task (SRTT), and a task that is learned
primarily by the motor network, the force-tracking task (FTT). Within each task,
participants were randomly assigned to three different feedback groups
(reward, punishment, control). (B) Experimental timeline. For each task, trials
were grouped into blocks of trials. Unbeknownst to the participants, during
some blocks (“fixed sequence blocks”) the stimulus would appear according to
a repeating pattern. During other periods the appearance of the stimulus was
randomly determined (“random sequence blocks”). Following familiarization
blocks, participants were trained on the task with valenced feedback. To
assess sequence knowledge, training was bookended by early and late probes
in which participants performed three blocks arranged random - sequence -
random. Participants were then tested for sequence knowledge without
feedback 1-hour, 24-hours, and 30-days after learning. (C) Serial reaction time
task. Participants were presented with four locations on a screen denoted by
“O’s”. A trial began when one “O” changed to an “X”. Participants were
instructed to press the corresponding button on a controller as fast and
accurately as possible. After 800 ms, the X changed back to an O, and
participants were given valenced feedback for their performance on that trial.
Performance in the SRTT was based on reaction time and accuracy of the
button press. If participants were accurate and faster than they performed on
their previous 96 trials, a participant would receive positive feedback (reward,
or absence of punishment) on that trial. If they were slower or inaccurate, they
would receive the negative outcome (either punishment or absence of reward).
(D) Force-tracking task. Participants held a force transducer in their right hand
and saw a black circle (start position), a blue circle (target), and a white circle
(cursor). Participants were instructed to squeeze the force transducer to keep
the cursor as close to the center of the target as possible. The target moved
continuously during the trial (12 seconds), followed by a 2 second break
between trials. The distance of the cursor from the target was the measure of
performance. If the participant was closer to the center of the target than he
were on their previous 8 trials, they would receive positive feedback. During
sequence blocks the target followed one of six trajectories, (D, left) whereas
during random blocks the target would follow a random trajectory.
Full size image

Participants were able to learn both tasks successfully and the skill learned was almost
entirely retained at 30 days. Overall, we saw little effect of reward on either learning or
retention. Punishment had no effect on skill retention, but had significant, task-
dependent effects on learning. In the SRTT punishment improved speed with minimal
impact on accuracy. In contrast, punishment impaired performance on the FTT. These
results suggest that the effect of feedback varies depending on the skill being learned,
and while feedback impacts online performance, the benefit of reward reported to
retention may be less robust than previously demonstrated.

Results
Punishment improves online performance of the serial reaction time task
We investigated the impact of reward and punishment on SRTT sequence learning in
three different ways. First, we compared sequence knowledge during sequence
knowledge probes either early in learning (immediately following familiarization when
valenced feedback was first introduced) or late in learning (at the end of the training
session) (see Fig. 1). During these probes, we estimated sequence knowledge by
calculating the reaction time (RT) difference between fixed and random blocks (Fig.
2). A repeated measures ANOVA, with Group (reward, punishment, control),
Sequence (fixed, random) and Time-point (early, late) as factors revealed a significant
three-way interaction between Group, Sequence, and Time-point (F (2,33) = 5.370, p < 
0.01). Follow-up analyses indicated that both punishment and reward groups acquired
more skill knowledge during the early sequence knowledge probe than control (F (2,33) = 
5.213, p < 0.05; punishment v control: t (22) = 3.455, p < 0.005, reward v control: t (22) = 
2.545, p < 0.02), but did not differ from each other (reward v punishment: t (22) = 0.707,
p = 0.487). Further, the control group evidenced a greater gain in sequence knowledge
from the early- to late sequence knowledge probe compared to reward (t (22) = 2.884, p < 
0.01), although this comparison was not significant for control versus punishment
when correcting for multiple comparisons (t (22) = 2.075, p = 0.05), in part reflecting the
benefit of feedback to early learning. These results suggest that feedback facilitates
rapid sequence learning on the SRTT.

Figure 2: Punishment improves performance of the SRTT.

During the training period, the punishment group was significantly faster than
control overall (upper inset; Main effect Group: F  = 3.286, p < 0.05; t  = 
(2,33) (22)

2.884, p < 0.012). There was no difference between reward and control (t  =  (22)

0.480, p = 0.636) or reward and punishment (t  = 1.757, p = 0.093) during the

(22)

training period. The reward group showed a greater reduction in average RT

from pre- to post-training than control [Group x Time point interaction: F  = 
(2,33)

5.370, p < 0.01; Reward v Control: t  = 3.730, p < 0.001; Punishment v Control:

(22)

t  = 2.199, p = 0.039, not significant considering multiple comparisons (α:

(22)

0.05/3 = 0.0167)]. There was also a significant Group x Timepoint x Sequence

interaction (F  = 5.370, p < 0.01). Both punishment and reward acquired more
(2,33)

skill knowledge during the early sequence knowledge probe than control (F  =  (2,33)

5.213, p < 0.05; punishment v control: t  = 3.455, p < 0.005, reward v control:

(22)

t  = 2.545, p < 0.02), but did not differ from each other (reward v punishment:
(22)

t  = 0.707, p = 0.487). The reward group evidenced less sequence learning in

(22)

the post-training probe than the pre-training probe (t  = 2.884, p < 0.01),

(22)

possibly due to the benefit of reward during the early learning period. The
punishment group did not differ from control when correcting for multiple
comparisons [t  = 2.075, p = 0.05 (α: 0.05/3 = 0.0167)]. Feedback did not affect
(22)

retention at any time point (lower right panel). Main panel shows mean ± SEM.
Box plots show median, crosses show within group outliers. Asterisks denote
periods with significant effects of feedback (p < 0.05).
Full size image

Second, to examine the effect of valenced feedback on learning rate, we compared the
median reaction time across the six consecutive sequence training blocks immediately
following the early sequence knowledge probe using a repeated measures ANOVA
with Block (1–6) and Group as factors. Participants showed improvement over the
course of training (Main effect of Block: F (5,33) = 11.224, p < 0.001). We also found a
main effect of Group (F (2,33) = 3.286, p < 0.05) and follow up tests indicated that the
punishment group was significantly faster than control overall (punishment versus
control: t(22) = 2.884, p < 0.012), but there was no difference between reward and control
(t(22) = 0.480, p = 0.636), or reward and punishment (t (22) = 1.757, p = 0.093, two-tailed)
during the training period. The lack of a significant Group by Sequence interaction in
the post- probe highlights that this is a general, rather than sequence-specific,
improvement.

Finally, we examined the impact of valenced feedback on retention. All groups

demonstrated retention of sequence knowledge at all time-points (Main effect
Sequence: F(1,33) = 100.245, p < 0.001; t(35) = 10.036, p < 0.001). There was no influence
of feedback Group on retention.

Collectively, these results show that both reward and punishment increased early
learning of the sequence with punishment additionally having a marked effect on
performance during training.

Punishment impaired performance of the force-tracking task

We conducted the same three analyses on data from FTT (Fig. 3A,B). A description of
the trial-by-trial performance in the FTT is available in the supplemental materials.
First, sequence knowledge during the feedback period was evaluated by comparing the
mean squared error during sequence and random blocks in the early and late sequence
knowledge probes using repeated measures ANOVA (Time-point x Sequence x
Group). There was a significant interaction between Time-point and Group (F (2,33) = 
3.526, p < 0.05), but in contrast to the SRTT, no three-way interaction with Sequence
(F(2,33) = 1.212, p = 0.310). Follow-up analyses indicated that only reward improved from
pre- to post- training time-point (pre- versus post- probe, 1-sample t-test, reward: t (11) = 
4.250, p < 0.001, punishment: t (11) = 0.100, p = 0.922, control: t (11) = 2.292, p = 0.043 [n.s.
corrected for multiple comparisons]). Punishment showed significantly less
improvement than the reward group from the pre- to post- training probe (t (35) = 2.372,
p < 0.03) but was not significantly worse than control (t (35) = 1.206, p = 0.241). There
was no difference between reward and control (t (35) = 1.688, p = 0.106). Unlike the
SRTT, there was no significant Time-Point x Sequence x Group interaction, suggesting
that feedback modulated general, rather than sequence-specific, learning on the FTT.

Figure 3: Punishment impairs to performance on the FTT.

Compared to reward, punishment impaired general performance improvement
from the pre- to post- training probe (Probe x Group interaction (F  = 3.526, p 
(2,33)

< 0.05; t  = 2.372, p < 0.03). Reward was not beneficial compared to control

(35)

(t  = 1.688, p = 0.106. Punishment did not impair performance compared to

(35)

control (t  = 1.206, p = 0.241). Unlike the SRTT, feedback had no influence on

(35)

sequence specific knowledge (lower left) or performance during the training

period (inset). As was found in the SRTT, feedback did not affect performance
during the retention probes (lower right). Main panel shows mean ± SEM. Box
plots show median, crosses show within group outliers. Asterisks denote
periods with significant effects of feedback (p < 0.05). One outlier from
punishment in the post-training period is not pictured in the boxplot [Random –
Sequence sq err. = −7 cm sq err].
Full size image

Second, we examined performance during the six consecutive sequence training blocks
using repeated measures ANOVA, with Block and Group as factors. All feedback
groups showed improvement across the training period (Main effect of Block: F (5,165) = 
8.478, p < 0.001; S2 versus S7: t (35) = 2.836, p < 0.01). Although reward tended to
outperform punishment during training, there was no effect of Group on learning rate
in the FTT (Group x Block: F (10,165) = 1.186, p = 0.156).

Finally, we examined the effect of valenced feedback on retention in the FTT. Five
participants did not complete the retention probes due to timetabling. This left us with
10 control, 9 reward, and 11 punishment participants for retention analyses. All groups
demonstrated retention of sequence knowledge at all time-points (Main effect of
Sequence, F (1, 27) = 86.387, p < 0.001; t (35) = 9.030, p < 0.001). There was no main
effect or interaction with feedback Group on retention.

Collectively, these results show that the primary effect of feedback in FTT was for
punishment to impair learning from the pre- to post-training probe time points.

Discussion

This study sought to determine whether the impact of reward and punishment
generalizes across different types of motor skill learning, as implemented using a
Serial Reaction Time Task (SRTT) and a Force Tracking Task (FTT). We found that
punishment had opposing effects on performance of the two skills. During performance
of the SRTT, training with punishment led to improved reaction times overall with
minimal detriment to accuracy. In contrast, punishment impaired performance of the
FTT. These effects were only present whilst feedback was being given; there was no
effect of training with feedback on general or sequence-specific retention measured at
1 hour, 24 hours, and 30 days in either task. Our results refute any simple model of the
interaction between feedback and performance. Instead, we show that the impact of
feedback depends on the training environment and the skill being learned.

There may be a number of reasons for this task-specific effect of feedback. While both
tasks rely on sequence learning, they differ with respect to the mechanism that
facilitates improvement. The motivational salience of punishment (i.e. loss aversion)
may explain the performance benefit seen on the SRTT, where the added attention
facilitated by punishment has been hypothesized to recruit additional neural resources
to aid SRTT performance 8,18. However, a purely motivational account cannot explain
the deleterious effect of punishment to performance on the FTT. Therefore, we need to
consider alternative explanations that may account for the differential effects of reward
and punishment to performance these two tasks.

The two tasks also differ with respect to their motor demands. Specifically, in our
implementation, performance on the FTT relies on more precise motor control than the
SRTT. Within the motor system, others have reported that reward-related
dopaminergic activity reduces motor noise 19, while dopaminergic activity associated
with punishment leads to an increase in motor variability, i.e. noise 20. We found that
punishment impaired general (i.e. non sequence-specific) performance on the FTT.
After one-hour, during the retention test without feedback, the punishment group
performed as well as the reward and control groups. We think that our findings are
consistent with the hypothesis that punishment may increase motor noise, which may
have led to impaired performance by the punishment group during training. Because
increased motor variability was not directly measured in our implementation of the
SRTT, participants would not be penalized for any variation in movement that did not
impact reaction time directly. If an assessment of motor variability was considered in
the evaluation of SRTT performance, one might find that punishment impairs this
dimension of performance. Our implementation of the SRTT and the FTT do not have
a direct measure of motor variability and we cannot explicitly address this issue in the
present study. Future work should examine this question.

The implementations of the tasks used here also differed with respect to the
information content of a given instance of feedback. Ordinarily, learning on the SRTT
relies on the positive prediction error encoded in the striatum that occurs on fixed-
sequence trials8,21. The reward or punishment in the SRTT may augment this positive
prediction error and facilitate performance and learning. In contrast, the moment-to-
moment feedback given on the FTT is not associated with an instantaneous positive
prediction error signal. Rather, our implementation of the FTT is similar to
discontinuous motor tasks that rely on the cerebellum and may therefore not benefit
from moment-to-moment feedback 22 (but also see Galea, et al.4 for an additional
account of cerebellar learning with feedback). Finally, although information content
was not intentionally manipulated, this difference may also alter effect the reward and
punishment on these tasks.

Unlike prior studies, we saw no benefit of reward to retention 4,7,8,10. Most studies that
have looked at reward and punishment in skill learning have only examined immediate
recall4,8,10, and only one study has shown a benefit of reward to long-term retention of
a motor skill7. In their study, Abe, et al.7 observed that the control and punishment
groups evidenced diminished performance after 30-days compared to their post-
training time-point. Importantly, Abe, et al.7 also found that the reward group showed
offline gains from the immediate time point to 24-hours after training, and this effect
persisted through 30-days. So, while in our study the punishment and control group did
not evidence forgetting from 24-hours to 30-days, potentially limiting our sensitivity to
the effect of reward, the reward group in our study also did not show any offline-gains.
As such, we are confident in our finding that reward did not impact retention.

While not discussed at length by Abe and colleagues, their punishment group
performed significantly worse during training, suggesting that the skill was not learned
as effectively by participants in that group. Therefore, it is unclear whether the
difference in memory observed in their study can be attributed to a benefit of reward to
consolidation or to ineffective acquisition when training with punishment. Our study
design differed from the implementation used by Abe and colleagues 7with respect to
the input device (whole-hand grip force in our study, precision pinch force by Abe and
colleagues), feedback timing, and trial duration. However, our result questions
robustness of the finding that reward benefits skill retention. We maximized our design
to be sensitive to differences in online-learning rather than retention, and future studies
should examine other factors that influence the effect of feedback on retention of skill
memories.

With respect to the SRTT, it is worth considering that our participants evidenced less
sequence-specific learning than some others have found in unrewarded versions of this
task, where the difference between sequence and random trials can be up to 80 
ms23,24,25. However, there is considerable variability in the difference between
sequence and random trials on the SRTT reported in the literature, and some groups
have reported sequence-specific learning effects on the SRTT to be between 10 and 30 
ms26,27. The difference reported after learning by the Control, Reward, and Punishment
groups in our study is approximately equal to the difference for the rewarded group
reported by Wachter, et al.8 (~30 ms) and more than observed in their control and
punishment groups. This is evidence of substantially less sequence-specific knowledge
than we observed in our study, and we are therefore confident that participants were
able to learn and express sequence-specific knowledge in all three feedback conditions.

Finally, we recognize that there are difficulties in comparing performance across tasks.
Because the tasks used here vary in performance outcome (response time in the SRTT,
tracking error in the FTT), comparing them in a quantitative way is not possible.
However, the dissociation in the effect of punishment in these contexts provides
compelling evidence that the effect does depend on task. Moreover, our study brings
together the previously disparate literature examining the effects of reward and
punishment on skill learning. This result shines light on the challenge of extrapolating
from a single experiment in a specific context to a more general account of skill
learning.

Overall, we have demonstrated that punishment modulates on-line performance in a

task-specific manner and in our study we found that neither reward nor punishment
modulates long-term retention of skill memories. These findings cast doubt on the
commonly held hypothesis that reward is ubiquitously beneficial to memory, and,
suggest that the interaction between feedback and learning should be better understood
before feedback can be fully exploited in clinical situations.

Materials and Methods

The study design was the same for both tasks (Fig. 1A). Participants trained on either
the serial reaction time task (SRTT), or the force-tracking task (FTT). For both tasks,
trials were presented over 15 blocks. A 30-second break (minimum) separated each
block of trials. Unbeknownst to the participants, during some blocks (“fixed sequence
blocks”) the stimulus would appear according to a repeating pattern (described below
for each task). During other periods the appearance of the stimulus was randomly
determined (“random sequence blocks”).

Familiarization and training blocks were conducted in the bore of an MRI scanner. To
acclimatize participants to the task, and establish their baseline level of performance,
the task began with three random-sequence blocks without feedback (“familiarization
blocks”). Participants were unaware of the forthcoming feedback manipulation during
these familiarization blocks. Then the feedback period began, starting with a pre-
training probe (three blocks, random – fixed – random), then the training blocks (six
consecutive fixed-sequence blocks), and, finally, a post-training probe (three blocks,
random – fixed – random). The difference in performance between the average of the
two random blocks, versus the fixed sequence block, during the probes was used to
index sequence knowledge 28.

To test the impact of reward and punishment on skill learning, participants were
randomised into one of 3 feedback groups: reward, punishment, or uninformative
(control). During the feedback period, reward, punishment, or control feedback was
provided based on the participant’s ongoing performance. The feedback paradigm for
each task is outlined separately below.

Participants were given retention probes at one-hour, 24–48 hours, and 30 days after
training. No feedback was delivered during the retention probes. The second probe
always occurred after at least one night’s sleep.
The initial visit (Familiarization, Early probe, Learning, and Late Probe) took place
while participants underwent MRI scanning.

Participants
78 participants (47 female, mean age = 25 years ± 4.25 std.) participated in this
experiment. All participants were right-handed, free from neurological disorders, and
had normal or corrected-to-normal vision. All participants gave informed consent and
the study was performed with National Institutes of Health Institutional Review Board
approval in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki (93-M-0170, NCT00001360).
Data from six individuals were removed from the study due to inattention (defined as
non-responsive or inaccurate on greater than 50% of trials during training) or inability
to complete the training session.

Serial reaction time task (SRTT)

The version of the SRTT used here adds feedback to the traditional implementation. At
the beginning of each block participants were presented with four “O”s, arranged in a
line, at the centre of the screen. These stimuli were presented in white on a grey
background (Fig. 1B). A trial began when one of the “O”s changed to an “X”.
Participants were instructed to respond as quickly and accurately as possible, using the
corresponding button, on a four-button response device held in their right hand. The
“X” remained on screen for 800 ms regardless of whether the participant made a
response, followed by a 200 ms fixed inter-trial interval, during which time the four
“O”s were displayed.

A block consisted of 96 trials. During fixed-sequence blocks, the stimuli appeared

according to a fixed 12-item sequence repeated 8 times (e.g. 3–4–1–2–3–1–4–3–2–4–
2–1). Each fixed block began at a unique position within the sequence, to help prevent
explicit knowledge of the sequence from developing 29. In the random blocks, the
stimuli appeared according to a randomly generated sequence, without repeats on back-
to-back trials, so, for example, participants would never see the triplet 1–1–2.

Between each block, participants saw the phrase “Nice job, take a breather”. After five
seconds, a black fixation-cross appeared on the screen for 25 seconds. Five seconds
before the next block began, the cross turned blue to cue the participants that the block
was about to start.

During the retention probes, participants performed three blocks (random – fixed –
random on a 15-inch Macbook Pro using a button box identical to the one used during
training. During these retention probes, the next trial began 200 ms after the participant
initiated their response. No feedback was given during the retention blocks. The first
button press made after stimulus presentation was considered the participant’s
response. All responses were included in the analysis. Any missed trial was counted as
an error, and only correct trials were considered for analysis of RTs.

Force-tracking task
In the force-tracking task (FTT), participants continuously modulated their grip force
to match a target force output 16,17. In the traditional implementation, participants are
exposed to a single pattern of force modulation repeated each trial. This design does
not allow discrimination between general improvement (i.e. familiarization with the
task and/or the force transducer) and improvement specific to the trained sequence of
force modulation. Therefore, we decided to adapt the traditional FTT method to align it
with the experimental design that is traditional for the SRTT, i.e. by including random
sequence blocks.

A given trial consisted of a 14 second continuous pattern of grip modulation. At the

beginning of a trial, participants were presented with three circles on a grey
background projected onto a screen: a white circle (Cursor, 0.5 cm diameter), a blue
circle (Target, 1.5 cm diameter), and a black circle (bottom of the screen, 2 cm
diameter, indicating the position corresponding to minimum pressure; Fig. 1C).
Participants held the force transducer (Current Designs, Inc., Philadelphia, PA) in the
right hand between the four fingers and palm (Fig. 1D, right). Participants were
instructed to squeeze the force transducer (increasing force moving the cursor
upwards) to keep the cursor as close to the center of the target as possible as the target
moved vertically on the screen. During fixed blocks, participants were randomly
assigned to one of six sequences (Fig. 1D, left). During random blocks, the target
followed a trajectory generated by the linear combination of four waveforms, with
periods between 0.01 and 3 Hz. These waveforms were constrained to have identical
average amplitude (target height), and the number and value of local maxima and
minima were constant across the random blocks.

For data analysis, the squared distance from the cursor to the target was calculated at
each frame refresh (60 Hz). The first 10 frames were removed from each trial. The
mean of the remaining time points was calculated to determine performance, and trials
were averaged across blocks.

Feedback
All participants were paid a base remuneration of $80 for participating in the study. At
the start of the feedback period, participants were informed they could earn more
money based on their performance.
During the feedback period, participants were given either reward, punishment, or
control feedback. The presence of reward or the absence of punishment was based on
participant’s performance. In both the SRTT and the FTT, an initial criterion was
defined, based on the participant’s median performance during the final familiarization
block. As participants progressed through training, this criterion was re-evaluated after
each block, to encourage continuous improvement. In the reward group, the feedback
indicated that the participant’s performance was getting better at the task. In the
punishment group, the feedback indicated they were getting worse. Because the
frequency of feedback events differed between the reward and punishment groups
(reward from high-to-low as training progressed, punishment from low-to-high), the
control group was split into two different sub-groups (control-reward and control-
punishment). The control groups received feedback at a frequency that matched the
corresponding feedback group but was not related to their performance. Participants in
the control group were made aware that the feedback was not meaningful. We
considered the reward and punishment control groups together in the analyses, as is
typical in these studies 7,8.

In the SRTT, performance was defined as the accuracy (correct or incorrect) and
reaction time (RT) of a given trial. Feedback was given on a trial-by-trial basis (Fig.
1C). This was indicated to the participant when the white frame around the stimulus
changed to green (reward) or red (punishment). In the reward group, the participants
were given feedback if their response was accurate and their RT was faster than their
criterion RT, which indicated that they earned money ($0.05 from a starting point of
$0) on that trial. In the punishment group, participants were given feedback if they
were incorrect, or their RT was slower than their criterion, which indicated that they
lost money ($0.05 deducted from a starting point of $55) on that trial. Participants in
the control-reward and control-punishment groups saw red or green colour changes,
respectively, at a frequency matched to punishment and reward, respectively. Control
participants were told that they would be paid based on their speed and accuracy.
Importantly, to control for the motivational differences between gain and loss,
participants were not told the precise value of a given trial. This allowed us to assess
the hedonic value of the feedback, rather than the level on a perceived-value function.
Between blocks, for the reward and punishment groups, the current earning total was
displayed (e.g. “You have earned $5.00”). Control participants saw the phrase, “You
have earned money”. The criterion RT was calculated as median performance in the
first familiarization block. After each block, the median + standard deviation of
performance was calculated, and compared with the criterion. If this test criterion was
faster (SRTT) or more accurate (FTT) than the previous criterion, the criterion was
updated. During the SRTT, only the correct responses were considered when
establishing the criterion reaction time.
Feedback in the FTT was based on the distance of the cursor from the target (Fig. 1C).
For the reward group, participants began with $0. As participants performed the task,
their cursor turned from white to green when the distance from the target was less than
their criterion. This indicated that they were gaining money at that time. In the
punishment group, participants began with $45, and the cursor turned red if it was
outside their criterion distance. This indicated that they were losing money. For
reward-control and punishment control, the cursor changed to green or red,
respectively, but was unrelated to their performance. For control, the duration of each
feedback instance, as well as cumulative feedback given on each trial, was matched to
the appropriate group. Between each block, participants were shown their cumulative
earnings. Control participants saw the phrase “You have money”.

Statistical analyses
In both tasks, the six training blocks were compared using a repeated-measures
ANOVA to establish differences in learning rate (Block x Group). Learning was
indexed by comparing the performance (RT and accuracy separately for SRTT;
squared distance from the target [squared error] for FTT) on the sequence blocks to the
average of the two random blocks at the pre and post training time points using a
repeated-measures ANOVA (Time point x Sequence x Group). Memory for the
sequence was evaluated by comparing the fixed block, to the mean of the two random
blocks, at each retention time point using a repeated-measures ANOVA (Time point x
Sequence x Group). A Bonferroni correction was applied for post-hoc analyses to
correct for multiple comparisons. If sphericity was violated, the Hyunh-Feldt
correction was applied.

Additional Information

How to cite this article: Steel, A. et al. The impact of reward and punishment on skill
learning depends on task demands. Sci. Rep. 6, 36056; doi: 10.1038/srep36056 (2016).

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims

in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Characteristics and Qualities of Creative

People
By Lisa Crocco on June 1, 2017 / 0 Comments
If you have ever met a creative person (or if you are one) then you may have noticed that they
have certain unique characteristics and qualities. These certain characteristics and qualities truly
make them stand out as an individual.

Maybe it is the paint covering their clothes or their pen and paper always in hand, these creative
people are always up to something. Whatever the traits and giveaways are, being a creative
person has health benefits including having lower levels of stress and anxiety, has healing-like
effects, assists in self-expression, enhances self-worth, lowers feelings of depression, as well as
other great benefits.
Characteristics and Qualities of Creative People
Although each and every creative person is different from the next, many of them have similar
personality traits. Here are some of the most distinct characteristics and qualities that some
highly creative people have and embody.

Independent
Usually, creative people have a strong sense of independence. They enjoy being alone with their
ideas and making art out of their thoughts. They are comfortable with being on their own when
exploring new cities or even eating at a restaurant by themselves. In a way, they would prefer not
to work on projects with other people since it is easier for them to dive in and take charge all by
themselves.

Curious

Creative people are always curious about how certain things work and what makes people tick.
They are the people who constantly ask questions and want to become knowledgeable about
random things. Their curiosity comes across in their work and art since they are brave enough to
question and then answer things others will not.

Deep thinkers

It should come as no surprise that creative people are deep thinkers. They dive deep into
philosophical questions and want to get to the root of everything. They internalize their thoughts
and their mind is always running. They are intelligent and become knowledgeable about religion,
politics, niche subjects, and the meaning of life in general. They tend to use their deep thoughts
and the inner-most workings of their mind for inspiration for their work.

Open-minded

Creative people tend to be very open to new ideas and new ways of thinking since they are
constantly thinking about life and things from different perspectives. For example, if they are a
writer, they are putting themselves in each of their characters and their mindsets when drafting
their novel. So when they are living their life, putting themselves in other people’s shoes and
thinking in a different mindset comes easily to them.

Interesting

Creative people are truly interesting individuals. They have such a vibrant personality that can
entertain and keep you occupied for hours. They have a wide range of interests which makes
talking to them about nearly anything always a fun time. They know how to conversate with a
diverse group of people and always have something interesting to say.
Fun

Creative people are a good time. They are fun to be around since they have such a thirst for life.
They are usually excited about new people, places, and things. They want to soak in everything
that life has to offer and then put their experiences into their work.

Ambitious

Creative people understand that no task is too small for them to tackle. They are ready to take on
a lot of work all at once and they know they can produce awesome results. Most of the time, they
do so under an intense deadline and plenty of stress. Whether it is a first draft of a novel due
within a month or a collection of sculptures they have to create for an art show quickly
approaching, they know they can do it.

Sensitive

Creative people are sensitive since they are very in-tune with their emotions and feelings. They
capture this sensitivity and use it as inspiration for their work. They have a certain sensitivity for
people, feedback, beauty, and other aspects of their life. They have a heightened sense of
sensitivity at all times.
Active

Creative people are active people. They have no tolerance for boredom since they always want to
be creating and improving their craft. They are down for anything that comes their way and are
ready for adventure at a moment’s notice. They thrive on new and exciting experiences since it
provides inspiration for their novel, poetry, music, dance, or artwork.

Spreads Happiness
Creative people share their gift and passion with the world and this, in turn, spreads
happiness. Spreading happiness through creativity happens when this passionate, creative person
shares their work and art with others. Their art evokes certain emotions and responses from
people, it also may inspire other people to become creative themselves. Creative people may
enjoy sharing their work with others because it also makes them happy to receive great reviews
of their work or see the expressions other’s have when they view their masterpieces. Creative
people tend to be happy, positive, and upbeat.
Final Thoughts
Creative people embody incredible characteristics and qualities that truly make them standout as
individuals. If you have a creative friend, family member, or coworker, it is always a joy to be
surrounded by them and their unique personality. If you are a highly creative person yourself, do
some self-reflection to see if you are embodying these characteristics and what other qualities
you have that correlate with your creative passion.

You can also try to foster creativity in your children or boost your own creativity as an adultif
this is something you are passionate about. Since creativity has many physical and mental health
benefits, it is something you should be exploring and implementing into your life. Becoming a
more creative person will enhance your life.

What other qualities or characteristics of creative people have you noticed? Share your thoughts
with us in the comment section below!

Looking for more creativity? Need inspiration? Head to Coloring.Club for all your creative and
coloring wants and needs.

14 Ways to Improve Your Grades

if You’re Underperforming
     | 

74 comments
Even the brightest students can sometimes find themselves academically
underperforming, often through no fault of their own. When students find
themselves in this situation, it’s often because they’re stuck in a rut and are
not sure what to do to improve. If this sounds like you, the first step is to work
out the reasons why you may be underperforming, and the next step is to
work out how to tackle the problem. If you’re not sure how to go about it, this
article shows you what you can do to form an improvement plan to help you
achieve the grades you know you’re capable of achieving.
 

1. Adopt a positive mental attitude

In the face of lower-than-expected grades, it’s only human to react by feeling
disappointed with oneself. When you’re frequently receiving lower grades than
you’d hoped for, you may start to feel depressed or defeated, and feel like
giving up. The first step on the road to improving your grades is to turn this
negativity on its head. You need to be positive about the situation if you’re to
stand a chance of improving it. Acknowledge that your grades aren’t what
you’re aiming for, but believe that you can do something about it. Start by
mentally taking control of the situation: instead of thinking “I’m a failure”, think
“I can and will do better than this.” Don’t give up – take positive steps towards
achieving the improvement you’re more than capable of achieving.
 

2. Work out where you’re falling short

You need to work out which areas need targeting before you can draw up a
plan of action, so the next step is to figure out the areas in which you’re
underperforming, and why. Are your grades consistently lower than you’d like
them to be across all your subjects, or is there one particular area you’re
struggling with that’s bringing down your overall performance in a particular
subject? Take a look at your grades over the last few months and look for
patterns. Has there been a general decline in academic achievement, or have
your grades in certain areas always been lower than you’d hoped? Are your
grades always low in the same areas, such as one problem subject? You’ll
probably already have a vague idea of the answers to these questions, but
seeing your grades written down on paper – perhaps even in graph format –
can help you see things more clearly.
Next, think about the reasons why you’re not performing to your full academic
potential in the areas you’ve identified. Are there external factors that may be
negatively affecting your grades, such as a family problem or worrying about a
social situation at school? Are you struggling with any particular academic
skills that might be dragging you down, such as essay-writing or note-taking?
And are you studying in a way that works for you? These are all factors that
could be affecting your academic performance, so once you’ve isolated what
the problem is – it could be a combination of more than one of these issues –
you’ll be able to start tackling it. If the problems are external, you’ll need to
take steps towards getting them to a point at which they no longer adversely
affect your studies; seeing a counsellor might help, for instance. If they’re
academic, read the rest of this article for some suggestions on how you can
improve.
 

3. Talk to your teachers

Your teachers know you best, so it’s worth talking to them when you’re
drawing up a plan of action for improving your grades. Ask them where they
think you need to improve, and they’ll probably have some advice on how you
can go about it. Coupled with the advice in the rest of this article, this should
allow you to tailor an action plan to your personal situation.
 

4. Pay more attention in class – and ask

questions
If you’re prone to daydreaming in class, it’s time to start focusing on the here
and now. Listen to what the teacher is saying rather than talking with friends
or allowing your mind to wander. Don’t simply copy down what’s on the board
without thinking about it; make sure you’ve understood it, make neat notes so
that you can understand them when you come back to them (more on that
later), and don’t be afraid to speak up if there’s something you don’t
understand or want clarifying. It’s much easier to ask a teacher to explain
something differently than it is to trawl through books trying to find a clearer
explanation for yourself, and they won’t think less of you for asking.
 

5. Start organising your life

Clutter of any kind inhibits our ability to operate efficiently, so another way of
improving your academic performance is to get organised. Keep your
workspace tidy and all your notes and textbooks organised in such a way that
you know where everything is. Start thinking more about your time
management, too, as this will allow you to prioritise your time effectively,
freeing time for problem subjects. Write yourself a daily timetable that
incorporates your school schedule, dividing your day into slots of time and
fitting in plenty of time for studying. Allocate extra time to subjects or topics
you’ve identified as being ones you’re struggling with; it could be that the
reason for your underperformance in these subjects is that you’re simply not
devoting enough time to them.
 
Your desk can be a place for great things.
 

6. Improve your note-taking skills

One of the reasons you may have identified for underperforming is that you’re
not taking good enough notes. Hurriedly scrawled notes from class can be
difficult to make sense of when you come to revise from them, or even to write
an essay based on them. It’s all too easy to misunderstand your own notes
and fail to get a strong enough grasp of the topic. It’s imperative, therefore,
that you produce good notes from each of your classes and from the books
you use – notes that you can read, that are useful, and that are logically
organised. If you make notes by hand – in class, for example – try to type
them up at the end of the day, while they’re still fresh in your mind. Click here
for lots more tips on effective note-taking.
 

7. Improve your essay-writing skills

Another common reason for academic underperformance is that the student’s
essay-writing skills aren’t sufficient for the level required to achieve top
grades. This is fairly easily fixed by improving your essay-writing technique.
Good essay technique covers all aspects of essay-writing, from the research
phase to the final proofread, and even how you respond to the feedback you
get for your essays. Responding in the right way to feedback – and not taking
criticism personally – will be particularly useful if you feel you’re
underperforming, as this should give you the guidance you need to be able to
improve.
 

8. Find the right learning style for you

If you’re academically underperforming, another possible reason could be that
you haven’t found the right learning style for you. We’re all different, and each
of us has our own way of studying that yields the best results. Perhaps you
just haven’t found your most effective studying style yet. If you’ve been trying
to work on your own, for example, you might find it easier to work with a friend
or two, so that you have someone else there to motivate you. To help work
out the best learning style for you, have a read of our article on how to find the
learning style that suits you best.
 

9. Improve your memory

Many students struggle to remember all the information they need for exams,
and this brings their grades down. With so much to learn across many
subjects, remembering facts, figures and arguments is a pretty monumental
task, and you need to arm yourself with some effective memory aids to help
you. You’ll find more tips on improving your memory in our article on memory
techniques for exam preparation.
 

10. Stop procrastinating

One of the reasons why you’re underperforming could be that you’re spending
too much time procrastinating – that is, putting off work by distracting yourself
with other things, such as social media. This is a common response to a big
workload; when you have so much to do that you don’t know where to start,
the temptation is simply not to start. The problem is that in doing so, you’re
delaying the inevitable, as well as making your task worse by eating into the
time when you could be productive. If you’re guilty of procrastination – and we
all are at some point or another – take a look at our article on five reasons we
procrastinate and how to stop it.
 

11. Allow plenty of time for revision

If you’re achieving lower scores than you’d hoped for on timed tests or mock
exams, it could be because you’re not allowing enough time for revising for
them. This may be because you know it’s not ‘the real thing’, but practice
exams are just as important as real ones. They show you which areas you
need to spend more time on, and achieving good grades in them will give you
a confidence boost. Treat them as seriously as you would a real exam,
allowing yourself plenty of time to revising for them. Better still, revise
everything you learn as you go along, so that you learn it properly first time
round and have less need for revision. Also, be sure to read our articles on
effective revision techniques for science students and humanities students.
 

12. Make learning more fun

Sometimes students underperform because they have simply lost the
motivation to learn. It’s not surprising, when the pressure of exams and doing
well at school takes away the enjoyment of learning. It’s easy to get so
focused on achieving top grades that you forget that learning can actually be
fun – and not only that, but it’s much easier to do well when you’re enjoying it.
If studying has become a chore for you, it’s time to put the fun back into
learning. You could do this by gamifying your studies, or by trying some of the
ideas in our article on 15 ways to make studying less stressful.
 

13. Hire a private tutor

As a last resort, if the ideas in this article haven’t worked for you, you might
consider hiring a private tutor to help you improve your grades for a
particularly tricky subject. Some extra tuition may be just what you need to
help bring your grade up, as you’ll benefit from one-to-one tuition in an
environment in which you might feel more able to ask questions without the
fear of speaking up in front of your peers. If you think this would help you,
speak to your parents and suggest that they place an advert in the local paper
if they’re willing to cover the cost of private tuition for you.
 
Going to a summer school, where you’re surrounded by new friends keen to
learn, can kickstart your motivation.
 

14. Go on a summer school

A final option – best taken alongside the other advice in this article, rather
than instead of it – is to book yourself onto an academic summer school.
Taking part in a summer school would allow you to learn away from the
pressures of the classroom and exams, reinvigorating your love of learning
and inspiring you to take a more determined approach to your studies. What’s
more, summer schools are great for helping you get to grips with trickier
subjects, so this could be a good solution to your underperforming subjects as
well. Take a look at our summer school courses to find one to help you start
improving your grades. It’s not just an option in the summer – ever-popular
Easter revision courses are a great way to get a boost shortly before your
exams.
 
Image credits: desk; study group.

Comments (74)

1.

Anonymous
November 2, 2018 at 10:07 am

Thanks for the article it really helped alot

Reply

2.

???
March 15, 2018 at 7:25 am

Im so frusterated because in the beginning of the year, i had all A’s and
B’s and now i have one A+ in a class that i just have to show up for (im
a teacher’s assistant) a B+ in PE (used to have an A) a B+ in
history(used to be an A+), a C in science (used to be a B), a C in
english(has been going in between a c, a d, and a b-), and a D in
math(which used to be a B). Im really upset because i have always
struggled with math and science but i want to be a doctor but i have
never struggled in english and this year, english is my worst subject.
Recently, i had a c- in english and i took a 50 point test and got 46.5
 (93%) but it only brought my grade up a little bit. I had a tutor in math
last year and it helped a ton but i don’t want to have to waste my time
driving there and back home again for three different subjects. I recently
got a 19/34 on a chemistry test and it made me really mad. I did an
extra essay to help it out and i have been writing a lot of essays lately to
apply for different language programs so i have gotton a lot of extra
practice with essay writing so i think it will help my grade. I am also
writing an essay for english which im doing pretty good on. I just want to
have at most one C by the end of the year.
Reply

3.

frank