ABSTRACT
In the history of thinking about stimulus generalization, two explanations have emerged: strength theory and stimulus classification theory. Strength theory assumes that as training proceeds, associations increase in strength. Modern versions of stimulus classification theory assume that the animal, on the basis of different outcomes such as different reinforcement schedules, classifies stimuli into different categories and responds appropriately. The use of stimulus generalization as an explanatory principle had also been informally invoked by I. P. Pavlov to account for the facilitating effects of performing an easy discrimination on the ability subsequently to perform a difficult discrimination on the same dimension. The assault on the “neo-Pavlovian” view of stimulus generalization was launched by K. S. Lashley and M. Wade in 1946. The generalization of excitation to adjacent corresponding points, or events, is governed by the discriminal distance between them, variations in the amount of generalization also depend on other processes that affect the spread of excitation.
