Comments on: not a surprise http://blog.founddrama.net/2005/11/not-a-surprise/ getOblique(); Thu, 04 Dec 2008 03:35:31 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.5 By: found_drama » Blog Archive » not a surprise (follow up) http://blog.founddrama.net/2005/11/not-a-surprise/#comment-469 found_drama » Blog Archive » not a surprise (follow up) Fri, 02 Dec 2005 01:24:59 +0000 http://blog.founddrama.net/2005/11/not-a-surprise/#comment-469 [...] A couple days ago I commented on a recent article out of USC (that I saw mentioned on BoingBoing) that proclaimed: “While surprise is not a new concept it had lacked a formal definition, broad enough to capture the intuitive meaning of the term, yet quantitative and computable.” The part that I’d taken issue with was the lacked a formal definition part, citing Rescorla & Wagner (1972) and Pearce & Hall (1980) (with a substantial nod to A for confirming the references) had pretty well accounted for surprise in their research. So I fired off just such a question to the researchers from USC. [...] [...] A couple days ago I commented on a recent article out of USC (that I saw mentioned on BoingBoing) that proclaimed: “While surprise is not a new concept it had lacked a formal definition, broad enough to capture the intuitive meaning of the term, yet quantitative and computable.” The part that I’d taken issue with was the lacked a formal definition part, citing Rescorla & Wagner (1972) and Pearce & Hall (1980) (with a substantial nod to A for confirming the references) had pretty well accounted for surprise in their research. So I fired off just such a question to the researchers from USC. [...]

]]> By: Amy http://blog.founddrama.net/2005/11/not-a-surprise/#comment-302 Amy Wed, 30 Nov 2005 02:27:09 +0000 http://blog.founddrama.net/2005/11/not-a-surprise/#comment-302 Yes, the science of surprise is decades old, but most people are too ignorant to admit that learning theory can add anything to these discussions---see below for what I know about surprise. The Rescorla-Wagner model (1972) can be expressed formally as: ΔV = αβ (λ-ΣV) where α = salience of the CS and is a fixed value, β = salience of the US, λ = processing of the US when it’s unpredicted (i.e. processing on the first trial), and ΣV = the sum of the associative strength of all CSs on a given trial. And of course, Pearce-Hall (1980): αn= │λn-1 – ΣVn-1│ The associative strength of the CS changes according to the following rule: ΔV = αSλ where α reflects CS associability, the term αS reflects processing directed to the CS (S= how the salience, or physical properties, of the CS affect learning), and λ reflects processing of the US. Yes, the science of surprise is decades old, but most people are too ignorant to admit that learning theory can add anything to these discussions—see below for what I know about surprise.

The Rescorla-Wagner model (1972) can be expressed formally as:
ΔV = αβ (λ-ΣV)
where α = salience of the CS and is a fixed value, β = salience of the US, λ = processing of the US when it’s unpredicted (i.e. processing on the first trial), and ΣV = the sum of the associative strength of all CSs on a given trial.

And of course, Pearce-Hall (1980): αn= │λn-1 – ΣVn-1│
The associative strength of the CS changes according to the following rule:
ΔV = αSλ
where α reflects CS associability, the term αS reflects processing directed to the CS (S= how the salience, or physical properties, of the CS affect learning), and λ reflects processing of the US.

]]>