Changes in cue associability across training in human causal learning.

A series of experiments studied the amount learned about two food cues (A and B) whose presentation in a meal was followed by an allergy (+) in a fictitious patient. Participants were trained with A+ and C+ in Phase 1 and then with AB+ or AB++ in Phase 2. Subsequent testing revealed that BC was more allergenic than AD, showing that more had been learned about B than A in Phase 2. Participants were also trained with A+, then with AB+, and finally with AB++. The results of interpolating AB+ between A+ and AB++ training were consistent with the hypothesis that pretraining with Cue A selectively suppressed attention to its associate across the AB+ trials and, thereby, reduced the amount subsequently learned about B on AB++ trials. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Context conditional flavor preferences in the rat based on fructose and maltodextrin reinforcers.

In three experiments, rats were exposed to a flavor preference procedure in which flavor A was paired with the reinforcer and flavor B presented alone in Context 1, while in Context 2 flavor A was presented alone and flavor B with the reinforcer. With fructose as the reinforcer both two- and one-bottle training procedures produced a context-dependent preference (Experiments 1 and 2). With maltodextrin as the reinforcer two-bottle training produced a context-dependent preference (Experiment 1). Following one-bottle training with maltodextrin reinforcement rats demonstrated a context-dependent preference when the conditioned stimulus (CS)- was presented with a dilute solution of the reinforcer during training (Experiment 3B) but not when the CS- was presented alone (Experiments 2 and 3A). The pattern of results with maltodextrin reinforcement suggests that there was competition between the cue flavors and the taste of the maltodextrin as predictors of the postingestive consequences of the maltodextrin reinforcer. The fact that rats were able to display context-dependent flavor preferences is consistent with the idea that learned flavor preferences rely on the sort of cue-consequence associations that underpin other forms of conditioning which produce accurate performance on biconditional tasks. The differences between fructose- and maltodextrin-based preferences are discussed in terms of configural and elemental learning processes. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Configural analysis of summation in autoshaping.

In 4 experiments, pigeons received autoshaping with various combinations of three stimuli, A, B, and C, before test trials in which responding during all three stimuli, ABC, was compared with that during a three-element control compound, DEF, which had been consistently paired with food. Pairing A, B, and C individually with food resulted in similar rates of responding during ABC and DEF (Experiments 1 and 2). Responding was faster, however, during ABC than during DEF after training in which food was signaled by the pairs of stimuli (AB, AC, and BC; Experiment 1). Responding was also faster during ABC than during DEF after training involving reinforced (+) and nonreinforced (°) trials of the form ABC+ A° BC°, followed by A+ BC+ (Experiment 2), or AB+ BC+ B° (Experiments 3 and 4). The results are consistent with those of a configural analysis of summation. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Configural associations in discrimination learning.

In 4 experiments, Sprague-Dawley rats and homing pigeons received training with an A+ AB0 BC+ discrimination, in which food (+) accompanied trials with A and BC. Food was not presented (0) on trials with the compound AB. Subsequent test trials revealed that responding during C by itself, or the compound ABC, was slower than during either A or BC. Responding during the ABC compound was also found to be slower after training with the A+ AB0 BC+ than an A0 AB+ BC+ discrimination. We argue that these findings demonstrate the importance of configural associations in discrimination learning. Two accounts for the way in which these associations exert their influence are considered. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Overshadowing and associability change.

Three appetitive Pavlovian conditioning experiments with rats examined the associability of stimuli A and B that had a history of compound conditioning (AB+), relative to stimuli X and Y that had a history of conditioning in isolation (X+, Y+). Following this training, Experiment 1 revealed that conditioned responding was higher to X and Y than to A and B (overshadowing). In a subsequent AY+, AX?, BY? test discrimination, the AY/BY discrimination was solved more readily than the AY/AX discrimination. In Experiment 2, following AB+, X+, Y+ training, A and Y were presented as a compound and signaled the availability of reinforcement upon the performance of an instrumental response. Test trials in which A and Y were presented alone, and in extinction, revealed that A acquired greater control of instrumental responding than Y. Experiment 3 revealed that following AB+, X+, Y+ training, A and B served as more effective discriminative stimuli for instrumental responding than X and Y. Overall, these results imply that the associability of stimuli conditioned in compound is higher than stimuli conditioned in isolation. These results are discussed in terms of attentional theories of associative learning. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2011 APA, all rights reserved)     

Perceptual Learning Enhances Retrospective Revaluation of Conditioned Flavor Preferences in Rats.

Forward and backward blocking of taste preference learning was compared in rats. In the forward condition, thirsty rats were exposed to a flavor (A) in sucrose solution (+) or in water (-), after which they were exposed to A in compound with another flavor (B) in sucrose solution (i.e., AB+). In the backward condition, these phases were reversed. Consumption of B alone was assessed when rats were food deprived. In the forward condition, rats given A+ consumed less B than rats given A-, providing evidence of forward blocking, whereas in the backward condition, rats given A+ drank more of B than those given A-. Subsequent experiments found that alternating but not blocked preexposure to A and B, when given prior to training, produced blocking of B whether A+ was given before or after AB+, suggesting that prior failures to observe backward blocking reflect failures of discrimination. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Conditions Favoring Superconditioning of Irrelevant Conditioned Stimuli.

Three appetitive conditioning experiments with rats found partial learning of complex XA+ , XB+ , XAB- (+ stands for reinforced; - stands for unreinforced) negative patterning discriminations with intermixed A+ and B+ trials (Experiment 1). AB+ trials (Experiment 2), and A+ , B+ , and AB+ trials (Experiment 3). In all experiments, differential responding emerged more slowly during the learning of the negative patterning discriminations than during learning of the XA+ , XB+ , XC- control discriminations. Additionally, the negative patterning groups responded more to X than to a separately reinforced Y on unreinforced test trials: thus, X derived superexcitatory properties. This pattern was reversed in the control groups. Results are consistent with theories that allow for different activation patterns when elements are combined. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2011 APA, all rights reserved)     

Configural processes in human associative learning.

The extent to which human discrimination learning is based on elemental or configural stimulus representations was examined in 7 experiments. In Experiments 1a and 1b, participants were able to learn nonlinear discrimination problems in a food-allergy task. In unique-cue theories, such learning is explained by individual stimulus elements acquiring independent connections with the outcome and also combining to form unique cues that function elementally. In Stage 1 of Experiments 2, 3, and 4a–c, Food A signaled an allergy outcome (O) (A?→?O) when presented alone but signaled no allergy (AB?→?no O) when paired with Food B. In Stage 2, Food B was paired with the allergy (B?→?0). In a test phase, the original discrimination between A and AB was found to be intact, at variance with the unique-cue theory. By contrast, in Experiments 5a, 5b, and 6, an effect of the B?→?O trials on the A–AB discrimination was observed with training procedures previously found by D. A. Williams (1995) to encourage elemental processing. Experiment 7 showed that the influence of B?→?0 trials on the A–AB discrimination was unaffected by pretreatments designed to foster an elemental processing strategy.… (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Instrumental responding remains sensitive to reinforcer devaluation after extensive training.

Four experiments, with 140 male rats, investigated performance of an instrumental response following postconditioning devaluation of the reinforcer. Exps I and II, which examined whether extended training would make the instrumental response insensitive to such devaluation, found substantial decreases in the performance of both moderately and extensively trained instrumental responses when their reinforcers were paired with an intraperitoneal injection of LiCl (.5 mg/kg). Both experiments revealed that there was some residual performance of a response whose reinforcer had been devalued. Exp III showed residual responding to be attributable neither to unconditioned levels of responding nor to the inadequacy of the devaluation procedure, while Exp IV revealed the amount of residual responding to be the same whether or not the reinforcer was earned by another response during aversion training. Results suggest that a portion of instrumental responding depends on response–reinforcer learning even after extensive training. However, with both moderate and extensive training, some portion of responding is independent of the current value of the reinforcer. (47 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Solving XOR.

[Correction Notice: An erratum for this article was reported in Vol 35(1) of Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes (see record 2009-00257-012). Figure 2 in the article was printed incorrectly due to an editing error. Below is the correct version of Figure 2.] Three experiments examined the way in which exclusive-or (XOR) problems are solved by rats. All rats first received food-rewarded positive and negative patterning problems with two stimulus sets: either A+, B+, AB- and C-, D-, CD+, or A-, B-, AB + and C+, D +, and CD-. Subsequently, rats received revaluation trials in which A was paired with shock and C was not, prior to generalization test trials with B, D, AB, and CD (Experiments 1 & 2); or received A→shock trials prior to tests with B and CD (Experiment 3). There was greater generalized fear to B than to either D (Experiments 1 & 2) or AB (Experiment 2) and CD (Experiments 2 & 3). These results are inconsistent with configural, connectionist models, but are consistent with an alternative connectionist model that can represent the logical structure of XOR problems. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The influence of an irrelevant stimulus on two discriminations.

In 3 experiments, the effect of adding an irrelevant stimulus to a discrimination was examined. In Exp 1, a group of pigeons received autoshaping with an A+Bo discrimination in which 1 stimulus signaled food, A+, and a simultaneous compound of A with another stimulus, B, signaled the absence of food, ABo. A 2nd group received similiar training, except that a 3rd stimulus, C, was present in both types of trials, AC+BCo. The A+Bo discrimination was acquired more readily than the AC+BCo discrimination. Exps 2 and 3 used a negative-patterning design, A+Bo+. In both experiments, this problem was mastered more readily than when an irrelevant stimulus was used to create an AC+BCoC+ discrimination. The results fail to confirm predictions derived from elemental theories of conditioning. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Exploratory studies of inhibitory conditioning in honeybees (Apis mellifera).

The best available evidence of inhibitory conditioning in vertebrates comes from experiments in which variants of A+/AB– and A+/B– training were compared in terms of response to B in summation and retardation tests, the results suggesting that inhibition is generated by nonreinforcement as an increasing function of the excitatory value of the setting. We report here 7 experiments with foraging honeybees (Apis mellifera) that failed to show a difference in the effects of the 2 treatments. On the basis of previous experiments as well as supplementary experiments whose results give no reason to doubt the sensitivity of the training techniques and measures used, our consistently negative results may mean either that inhibition in honeybees is generated by nonreinforcement independently of the setting or that there is no inhibitory conditioning at all in honeybees—that the only associative function of nonreinforcement is to reduce excitatory strength. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Response–reinforcer versus stimulus–reinforcer pretraining influences S+ versus S– discriminative control.

In 2 experiments, 60 male Long-Evans rats trained on a visual discrimination task (leverpresses reinforced) received stimulus–reinforcer (noise–food) trials, no training, or response–reinforcer (reinforcement of keypressing) training. Ss then learned an auditory discrimination (keypresses reinforced), in which the positive stimulus (S+) was a noise (N) and the negative stimulus (S–) was a tone (T). Noise–food training resulted in the greatest enhancement of leverpressing on N trials and the least suppression on T trials during a summation test. Prior training of keypress responses produced the opposite pattern of results. Findings are interpreted as reflecting the operation of the combination laws that R. A. Rescorla and A. R. Wagner (1972) proposed to account for intracompound dynamics in classical conditioning. (36 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2011 APA, all rights reserved)     

Failure of inhibition by B over C after A+, AB–, ABC+ training.

In 3 autoshaping experiments, pigeons were trained with an A+, AB–, ABC+ task in which Stimulus A signaled food, Stimulus Compound AB signaled no food, and Stimulus Compound ABC signaled food. Contrary to the prediction from elemental theories of conditioning, responding on a Stimulus Compound BC trial was not less than responding on a Stimulus C trial in testing. However, Stimulus B attenuated responding to another excitor (Experiment 2), and a separately trained inhibitor could attenuate responding to Stimulus C (Experiment 3). These results were consistent with a configural theory. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Inhibition and facilitation by B over C after A+, AB–, and ABC+ training with multimodality stimulus combinations.

Previous research with keylight conditioned stimuli has revealed that pigeons failed to show inhibition by Stimulus B over Stimulus C in BC versus C testing after A+, AB–, ABC+ training where Stimulus A and Stimulus Compound ABC had signaled food, and Stimulus Compound AB had signaled no food. Indeed, B slightly facilitated responding to C on the BC trials. The present research addressed the same issue with multimodality stimulus arrangements in autoshaping with pigeons, conditioned suppression with rats, and instrumental discrimination learning with rats. Stimulus B facilitated responding to C if A and B were of the same modality and C was of a different modality. However, B inhibited responding to C if A and C were of the same modality and B was of a different modality, or if B and C were of the same modality and A was of a different modality. These results are correctly predictable by Pearce's configural model with a minor modification. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

"Solving XOR": Correction to Grand and Honey (2008).

Reports an error in "Solving XOR" by C. Grand and R. C. Honey (Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 2008[Oct], Vol 34[4], 486-493). Figure 2 in the article was printed incorrectly due to an editing error. The correct version of Figure 2 is provided in the erratum. (The following abstract of the original article appeared in record 2008-14849-005.) Three experiments examined the way in which exclusive-or (XOR) problems are solved by rats. All rats first received food-rewarded positive and negative patterning problems with two stimulus sets: either A+, B+, AB- and C-, D-, CD+, or A-, B-, AB + and C+, D +, and CD-. Subsequently, rats received revaluation trials in which A was paired with shock and C was not, prior to generalization test trials with B, D, AB, and CD (Experiments 1 & 2); or received A→shock trials prior to tests with B and CD (Experiment 3). There was greater generalized fear to B than to either D (Experiments 1 & 2) or AB (Experiment 2) and CD (Experiments 2 & 3). These results are inconsistent with configural, connectionist models, but are consistent with an alternative connectionist model that can represent the logical structure of XOR problems. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Role of reinforcement in spaced-trial operant learning in pigeons (Columba livia).

The author designed 3 experiments to study pigeons' adjustment to unexpected shifts in reinforcer magnitude with a single trial per day. Extinction was faster or poorer after training with a small magnitude (1 food pellet) than after training with a large magnitude (10 or 15 pellets). A shift from 15 to 1 pellet was accompanied by a gradual adjustment, with no indication of a successive negative contrast effect. Pigeons discriminated the reinforcer magnitudes but yielded no evidence of spaced-trial simultaneous negative contrast. Moreover, extinction was faster for a stimulus paired with 1 pellet than for a stimulus paired with 15 pellets. The results can be interpreted in terms of simple strengthening-weakening learning rules and without reference to anticipatory frustration. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The effects of habituation training on compound conditioning are not reversed by an associative activation treatment.

Rats received habituation to either 2 compound flavors (AX and BY; the activation group) or a compound and an element alone (AX and Y; the habituation group). They also received additional presentations of Y alone either after (Experiment 1) or intermixed (Experiment 2) with habituation. In the habituation group, A had undergone habituation whereas B had not; in the activation group, both A and B had undergone habituation, but presenting Y alone should result in associative activation of B and that, according to G. Hall (2003), should increase B's efficacy. A supplementary experiment demonstrated that the presentation of Y does activate a representation of B. In both experiments, an aversion was established to AB, and subsequently the habituation group showed a greater aversion to B than to A. However, in neither experiment was there any indication that the activation group showed a greater aversion to B than to A. These results are inconsistent with the suggestion that the associative activation of a stimulus representation in the absence of the stimulus reverses the effects of habituation training. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Appetitive memory restoration after electroconvulsive shock in the rat.

Previous studies have demonstrated that noncontingent aversive stimulation can produce recovery from amnesia induced by electroconvulsive shock (ECS) for passive avoidance training. The present 2 experiments with a total of 120 male albino Sprague-Dawley rats examined the stimulus characteristics necessary to restore appetitive memory after ECS. In a 1-trial appetitive task, posttraining ECS proved to be an effective amnestic agent. Memory was restored by (a) 1 60-sec exposure to the appetitive reinforcer outside of the training situation and (b) 3 135-sec exposures to the training apparatus in the absence of the reinforcer. These results indicate that the "reminder effect" is not a consequence of generalization of learning that occurs during the reminder treatment. Data suggest that stimuli specific to the training situation are potential agents for reversing experimental amnesia. It is concluded that this class of recovery agents is better characterized as reminders than as stressors. A mechanism for recovery from experimental amnesia is proposed. (17 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Intertrial interval as a contextual stimulus: Further analysis of a novel asymmetry in temporal discrimination learning.

Four experiments investigated discrimination learning when the duration of the intertrial interval (ITI) signaled whether or not the next conditional stimulus (CS) would be paired with food pellets. Rats received presentations of a 10-s CS separated half the time by long ITIs and half the time by short ITIs. When the long ITI signaled that the CS would be reinforced and the short interval signaled that it would not be (Long+/Short?), rats learned the discrimination readily. However, when the short ITI signaled that the CS would be reinforced and the long interval signaled that it would not (Short+/Long?), discrimination learning was much slower. Experiment 1 compared Long+/Short? and Short+/Long? discrimination learning with 16-min/4-min or 4-min/1-min ITI combinations. Experiment 2 found no evidence that Short+/Long? learning is inferior because the temporal cue corresponding to the short interval is ambiguous. Experiment 3 found no evidence that Short+/Long? learning is poor because the end of a long ITI signals a substantial reduction in delay to the next reinforcer. Long+/Short? learning may be faster than Short+/Long?because elapsing time involves exposure to a sequence of hypothetical stimulus elements (e.g., A then B), and feature-positive discriminations (AB+/A?) are learned quicker than feature-negative discriminations (A+/AB?). Consistent with this view, Experiment 4 found a robust feature-positive effect when sequentially presented CSs played the role of elements A and B. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)