Configural learning in human Pavlovian conditioning: acquisition of a biconditional discrimination (original) (raw)
Related papers
Experimental manipulation of a unique cue in Pavlovian SCR conditioning with humans
Biological Psychology, 2000
We report two experiments on positive and negative patterning in human skin conductance response (SCR) conditioning with a manipulable unique cue. In experiment 1 flashing red lights, arrayed horizontally, were used as elements and apparent movement was used as additional (unique) cue when the elements were presented in compound. Positive and negative patternings were both acquired readily, and positive patterning transferred to new stimuli (green lights, vertically arrayed). The unique cue did not influence these outcomes. Experiment 2 examined only positive patterning, using a more conventional unique cue, a visual frame that surrounded the letter stimuli on compound trials but not on element trials. The unique cue again facilitated neither acquisition nor transfer. These results do not support either the unique cue extension of the Rescorla -Wagner theory or configural theories. Human participants seem to utilize 'size' or 'number' or some other abstract feature in preference to available concrete stimuli.
Evidence for the application of rules in Pavlovian electrodermal conditioning with humans
Biological Psychology, 2001
Two Pavlovian SCR conditioning experiments investigated interference effects in sequential training of positive and negative patterning discriminations in humans. In Experiment 1, positive patterning (A − , B− , AB+ ) was trained in Phase 1, immediately followed by a negative patterning schedule (C + , D+ , CD− ). We predicted that human participants would learn a specific numerosity rule in positive patterning, which interferes with the subsequent negative patterning schedule. In Experiment 2, negative patterning (C + , D+ , CD−) was trained in Phase 1, followed by a positive patterning schedule (A − , B− , AB+ ) in Phase 2. Because human participants would learn an abstract 'separate-versus-together'or 'opposite'-rule to solve the negative patterning discrimination in Phase 1, there should be less interference in positive patterning in Phase 2 where the separate/together-rule could be applied, too. In both experiments, the initial patterning discriminations were acquired successfully. In Experiment 1, human participants totally failed to solve the Phase 2 discrimination, while in Experiment 2 appropriate response differentiation developed in Phase 2. Thus, without pre-experience human participants seem to utilize a specific numerosity-rule in positive patterning and a separate/together-rule in negative patterning.
Biological Psychology, 2001
Two Pavlovian SCR conditioning experiments investigated positive and negative patterning discriminations in humans by means of transfer tests. In Experiment 1, positive patterning (A −, B− , AB+ ) was trained interleaved with non-reinforced presentations of an additional stimulus (C −). Then responding to new compounds consisting of either already trained elements (AC, BC) or new elements (DE) was examined. In Experiment 2, negative patterning (A +, B+ , AB− ) was trained interleaved with reinforced presentations of an additional stimulus (C +). Again, we examined responding to new compounds consisting of either already trained elements (AC, BC) or new elements (DE). In both experiments the initial patterning discrimination was solved successfully. The response patterns to the test compounds in both experiments were in contradiction to configural accounts of associative learning. In positive patterning human participants seemed to utilize 'number' or some other abstract feature in preference to available concrete stimuli. In negative patterning the abstract dimension of 'separate-versus-together' or 'opposite' was used.
A model of pavlovian conditioning: Variations in representations of the unconditional stimulus
Integrative Physiological and Behavioral Science, 1995
We present a model of Pavlovian excitatory conditioning in which associative strength and malleable central representations of unconditional stimuli determine the strength of conditional responding. Presentation of a conditioned stimulus acts through an experientially determined associative bond to activate a representation of the unconditional stimulus. The activation of the representation produces a conditioned response. A striking feature of the model is its ability to describe changes in conditioned response magnitude in terms of alterations of representations of the unconditional stimulus. Another is its acknowledgement of the capacity of associative bonds to survive behavioral extinction. The model describes much of the data reported from excitatory conditioning experiments and predicts counterintuitive phenomena.
Pavlovian compound conditioning in the rabbit
Learning and Motivation, 1975
Two experiments are reported on eyelid conditioning in the rabbit involving compounds of isolable CSs. In Experiment 1 it was demonstrated that subjects could be trained to respond discriminatively on the basis of specific configurations when no other reliable component cues were available. In Experiment 11, a novel test procedure failed to provide further evidence that subjects utilized specific configurational cues when reliable isolable components were available. The findings were discussed in terms of the assumption that any stimulus compound involves both isolable and configurational components with the former being more "salient" than the latter. Many studies in classical (Pavlovian) conditioning have used conditioned stimuli (CS) formed from two or more isolable components, i.e., so-called "compound stimuli." In such cases there have been two rather different views of the effective stimulus. Generally, stimulus selection theories (e.g., Mackintosh, 1965; Sutherland, 1964: Wagner, 1969) assume that when the subject is reinforced in the presence of a compound stimulus (AB) the subject will learn to respond to cue A and/or to cue B, but the theories usually ignore the possibility that the subject may also learn to respond to the unique combination ("configuration") of A and B. Rescorla and Wagner (1972), for example, assumed that the tendency to respond to AB is a simple summation of the acquired tendency to respond to A and the acquired tendency to respond to B. In contrast, a number of investigators (e.g., Razran, 1965; Toporkova, 1961; Wickens, Wickens & Nield, 1965) have suggested that learning to respond to the specific cue configuration involved in the CS, rather than to the isolable components, may be the more typical result of compound conditioning especially after extended training. This supposition has been partly based upon early Eastern European investigators (e.g., Platonov, 19 12, in Razran, 1965). difficult to evaluate in relationship to experimental This report is based on a dissertation submitted to the Graduate School of Yale University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Ph.D. degree,
Pavlovian conditioning and rule learning
Integrative Physiological and Behavioral Science, 1993
The experiment reviewed here was an attempt to show that two differential Pavlovian conditioning designs, namely positive and negative patterning, can best be understood as rule learning. First, it is shown that positive patterning is equivalent to the logical rule of conjunction (AND) and that negative patterning is equivalent to the logical rule of exclusive disjunction (XOR). It is assumed that in order to learn both kinds of discrimination subjects learn to use the according rule. If this is the case, the observed differentiation should be independent of the number of reinforcements for each individual stimulus. Second, subjects should be able to transfer the rule to new stimuli. Forty human subjects were randomly divided into four groups (N = 10 each). Two factors were manipulated independently between subjects: (1) positive vs negative patterning, and (2) 2 vs 4 pairs of trained stimuli. Second interval skin conductance responses were measured. During initial acquisition positive as well as negative patterning occurred independently of number of pairs of trained stimuli (with total amount of training kept constant). Furthermore, AND as well as XOR could be transfered to new stimuli.
Positive and negative patterning in human classical skin conductance response conditioning
Animal Learning & Behavior, 1993
Three experiments on classical differential conditioning of the human skin conductance response to elemental and compound stimuli are reported. Subjects in Experiment 1 received both positive and negative patterning training, followed by either positive or negative patterning transfer tests on new stimuli. In positive patterning, a compound of two stimuli is reinforced and its elements are nonreinforced. In negative patterning, the elements are reinforced and the compound is nonreinforced. Subjects in Experiments 2 and 3 received either positive or negative patterning during training, followed by transfer tests on new stimuli. In Experiment 2, the transfer series began with new elements, after which their compound was presented; in Experiment 3, the new compound was presented first in the transfer series, and then the separate elements were administered. All three experiments provided evidence of the acquisition of positive patterning, while negative patterning was found only in Experiments 2 and 3. Positive patterning transferred to new stimuli, indicating that it was not attributable solely to summation of subthreshold excitation conditioned to the elements on reinforced compound trials. This finding, coupled with the negative patterning found in Experiments 2 and 3, provided support for the unique cue hypothesis. It was concluded that the assumed unique cue constituted a learned "rule," and that the actual elemental stimuli were neither perceptually nor otherwise modified during the conditioning process.
Evolution of an elemental theory of Pavlovian conditioning
Learning & Behavior, 2008
Kenneth Spence (1936, 1937) formalized a quantitative, elemental approach to association theory that has had a broad and dominating influence on learning theory for many years. A set of challenges to the basic approach has spurred the subsequent evolution of elemental theory in various ways. Four of the challenges and some resulting theoretical accommodations are described in the context of Pavlovian conditioning. The evolution involves departures from important specifics of Spence’s theory, but is viewed as demonstrating the utility of the basic, elemental approach that is one of his legacies.
Effect of prior Pavlovian discrimination training upon learning an operant discrimination1
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1964
The effect of Pavlovian discrimination training with two stimuli upon subsequent learning of an operant discrimination involving those stimuli was studied. After preliminary lever press training, the lever was removed and thirsty rats received noncontingent pairings between S. (a tone or a clicker) and water reinforcements, whereas S, (a clicker or a tone) occurred always without reinforcement. This procedure presumably established S, as a positive CS for respondent behavior, whereas S2 was established as an inhibitory CS. Following this traininig, the lever was reintroduced and the rats were trained on an operant (lever pressing) discrimination involving S. and S~.
A Role for CS-US Contingency in Pavlovian Conditioning
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 2004
Two experiments evaluated the role of conditioned stimulus-unconditioned stimulus (CS-US) contingency in appetitive Pavlovian conditioning in rats. In both experiments, some groups received a positively contingent CS signaling an increased likelihood of the US relative to the absence of the CS. These groups were compared with control treatments in which the likelihood of the US was the same in the presence and absence of the CS. A trial marker served as a trial context. Experiment 1 found contingency sensitivity. There was a reciprocal relationship between responding to the CS and the trial marker. Experiment 2 showed that this result was not stimulus or response specific. These results are consistent with associative explanations and the idea that rats are sensitive to CS-US contingency.