Recent research suggests that outcome additivity pretraining modulates blocking in human causal learning. However, the existing evidence confounds outcome additivity and outcome maximality. Here the authors present evidence for the influence of presenting information about outcome maximality (Experiment 1) and outcome additivity (Experiment 2) on subsequent forward blocking. The results of Experiment 3 confirm that, with outcome maximality controlled, outcome additivity affects backward blocking but not release from overshadowing. Finally, the results of Experiment 4 demonstrate that information about outcome additivity has a similar effect on forward blocking if presented after the blocking training instead of before. The results are compatible with the idea that blocking results from inferential processes at the time of testing and not from a failure to acquire associative strength during training.

No abstract

Most associative theories have assumed that stimulus competition occurs only between conditioned stimuli (CSs) that are trained in compound. The present research investigated the possibility of competition between two CSs that were individually paired to the same unconditioned stimulus (US). We used human subjects in an anticipatory suppression analogue to Pavlovian conditioning. Experiment 1 showed that X+ training followed by A+ training resulted in impaired responding to X. This did not occur when A+ training preceded X+ training. Experiment 2 replicated the basic effect and showed that it did not occur when the Phase 2 training consisted of A-instead of A+ nor when the A+ pairings occurred in a second context. Experiment 3 showed that A+ pairings occurring in a second context could still produce the effect when X was tested in the context in which the A+ pairings had occurred, but not when X was tested in a context different from that used for A+ training. Collectively, these results suggest that individually trained CSs may compete with each other when one of those CSs is more strongly activated by the test context than the other one.One of the best known findings in conditioning research is that if a conditioned stimulus (CS) is a very good predictor of an unconditioned stimulus (US), the conditioned response elicited by other CSs that are trained in compound with the good predictor will be impaired. This effect is often called stimulus competition, or cue selection. A typical example is the forward-blocking effect (Kamin, 1968), in which a CS, A, is paired to the US during Phase I (i.e., A +),and then, in Phase 2, A is presented in compound with a novel CS, X, and followed by the US (i.e., AX +). This results in weaker responding to the target cue X in a subsequent test phase relative to responding by control subjects that were not exposed to the A+ pairings in Phase I. There are many other designs through which stimulus competition effects have been observed (e.g., Wagner, Logan, Haberlandt, & Price, 1968), but all of them have included compound training of the good predictor and the target cue. Consequently, despite many important discrepancies among the theories that attempt to explain these effects, all of them depend on the AX compound training as essential for A influencing responding

This article introduces the ArduiPod Box, an open-source device built using two main components (i.e., an iPod Touch and an Arduino microcontroller), developed as a low-cost alternative to the standard operant conditioning chamber, or "Skinner box." Because of its affordability, the ArduiPod Box provides an opportunity for educational institutions with small budgets seeking to set up animal laboratories for research and instructional purposes. A pilot experiment is also presented, which shows that the ArduiPod Box, in spite of its extraordinary simplicity, can be effectively used to study animal learning and behavior.

In three experiments, we assessed the role of signals for changes in the consequences of cues as a potential account of the renewal effect. Experiment 1 showed recovery of responding following extinction when acquisition, extinction, and test phases occurred in different contexts. In addition, extinction treatment in multiple contexts attenuated context-induced response recovery. In Experiment 2, we used presentations of an extraneous stimulus (ES), instead of context shifts, and found that responding recovered from extinction only when the ES was presented both between acquisition and extinction and between extinction and test. In Experiment 3, we used a reversal learning design in which, during training, two cues were first paired with different outcomes, then paired with the alternative outcomes, and finally paired again with the original outcomes. In this experiment, presentation, just prior to testing, of an ES that had previously been presented between the different phases produced an expectation of reversal in the meaning of the cues.