{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02141157811260904, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.341708542713568, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The learning curve: implications of a quantitative analysis.

The negatively accelerated, gradually increasing learning curve is an artifact of group averaging in several commonly used basic learning paradigms (pigeon autoshaping, delay- and trace-eye-blink conditioning in the rabbit and rat, autoshaped hopper entry in the rat, plus maze performance in the rat, and water maze performance in the mouse). The learning curves for individual subjects show an abrupt, often step-like increase from the untrained level of responding to the level seen in the well trained subject. The rise is at least as abrupt as that commonly seen in psychometric functions in stimulus detection experiments. It may indicate that the appearance of conditioned behavior is mediated by an evidence-based decision process, as in stimulus detection experiments. If the appearance of conditioned behavior is taken instead to reflect the increase in an underlying associative strength, then a negligible portion of the function relating associative strength to amount of experience is behaviorally visible. Consequently, rate of learning cannot be estimated from the group-average curve; the best measure is latency to the onset of responding, determined for each subject individually.