A componential view of configural cues in generalization and discrimination in Pavlovian conditioning

Brandon, Susan E.; Vögel, Edgar; Wagner, Allan R.

doi:10.1016/s0166-4328(99)00185-0

Cited by 130 publications

(247 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

216

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The current model can also explain the asymmetry between external inhibition and overshadowing reported by Brandon et al (2000). When a novel stimulus is presented with a CS, those CS elements that are displaced from the attention buffer remain active (but with smaller weight), and so continue to contribute to responding.…”

Section: External Inhibition and Overshadowingmentioning

confidence: 79%

Elemental representations of stimuli in associative learning.

Harris

2006

Psychological Review

157

255

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper reviews evidence and theories concerning the nature of stimulus representations in Pavlovian conditioning. It focuses on the elemental approach developed in Stimulus Sampling Theory (Atkinson & Estes, 1963;Bush & Mosteller, 1951b) and extended by McLaren and Mackintosh (2000;2002), and contrasts this with models that that invoke notions of configural representations that uniquely code for different patterns of stimulus inputs (e.g., Pearce, 1987Pearce, , 1994Wagner & Brandon, 2001). The paper then presents a new elemental model that emphasizes interactions between stimulus elements. This model is shown to explain a range of behavioral findings, including those (e.g., negative patterning and biconditional discriminations) traditionally thought beyond the explanatory capabilities of elemental models. Moreover, the model offers a ready explanation for recent findings reported by Rescorla (2000;2001;2002b) concerning the way that stimuli with different conditioning histories acquire associative strength when conditioned in compound.

show abstract

Section: External Inhibition and Overshadowingmentioning

confidence: 79%

Elemental representations of stimuli in associative learning.

Harris

2006

Psychological Review

157

255

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Up to now, studies that have investigated generalization decrement explicitly have routinely observed asymmetrical generalization decrements (Brandon, Vogel, & Wagner, 2000;Glautier, 2004;González, Quinn, & Fanselow, 2003;Wheeler, Amundson, & Miller, 2006 Glautier's (2004) experiments, participants had to rate the amount of air pollution produced by airplanes. Stimuli created by adding novel features (such as markings or guns) to the previously trained airplanes were rated at the same level as the original training stimuli, but stimuli created by removing features led to reduced ratings.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Symmetrical generalization decrements: Configural stimulus processing in human contingency learning

Thorwart

Lachnit

2009

Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Models of associative learning differ in their predictions concerning the symmetry of generalization decrements. Whereas Pearce's (1994) configural model predicts the same response decrement after adding elements to and after removing elements from a previously trained stimulus, elemental models, such as the replaced elements model and Harris's (2006) model, anticipate more of a decrement for removing than for adding elements. In three contingency learning experiments, we manipulated the motion and the spatial arrangement of colored dots in order to induce configural or elemental processing by perceptual grouping. The results reliably showed symmetrical decrements for the added and d removed groups. The manipulations of the stimuli had no effect on stimulus processing. This is d in line with Pearce's configural model, but it is at variance with the elemental models and previous studies.

show abstract

“…In addition, to determine whether the overshadowing of Y after 4 pairings was due to cue competition or stimulus generalization decrement (as a result of training of BY and testing on Y), some subjects were trained with Y and tested on BY. This control for generalization decrement was predicated on Pearce's (1987) argument that generalization from BY to Y should be equivalent to that from Y to BY (but see Brandon, Vogel, & Wagner, 2000).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Overshadowing as a function of trial number: Dynamics of first- and second-order comparator effects

Stout

Arcediano

Escobar

et al. 2003

Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In two conditioned lick suppression experiments with rats, we examined the permanence of the overshadowing effect as a function of the number of compound reinforced training trials. In Experiment 1, robust overshadowing was observed following 4 compound-US pairings but dissipated with 36 pairings. Overshadowing decreased because responding to the overshadowed stimulus increased, not because responding by the control group decreased. This dissipation was stimulus specific and not attributable to a response ceiling. Experiment 2 extended the generality of the effect to a sensory preconditioning design and further demonstrated that overshadowing lost through many compound-US pairings was restored by posttraining extinction of the training context. The results are explicable in terms of the extended comparator hypothesis (Denniston, Savastano, & Miller, 2001) under the assumption that the impacts of first-and second-order comparator processes grow differentially as a function of number of trials. STOUT, ARCEDIANO, ESCOBAR, AND MILLER

show abstract

A componential view of configural cues in generalization and discrimination in Pavlovian conditioning

Cited by 130 publications

References 11 publications

Elemental representations of stimuli in associative learning.

Elemental representations of stimuli in associative learning.

Symmetrical generalization decrements: Configural stimulus processing in human contingency learning

Overshadowing as a function of trial number: Dynamics of first- and second-order comparator effects

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About