Contemporary Learning Theories 2019
DOI: 10.4324/9781315788982-2
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A Contrast Between Traditional and Contemporary Learning Theory

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

1
5
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
1
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Thus, the distinction between Pavlovian and instrumental conditioning is not only based on the type of events experienced and the experimental procedure used, but also includes what subjects learn (i.e., mental representations and learned associations in memory). On the other hand, unlike behaviourist positions, modern learning theory does not claim that anything can be learned or that all behaviour is learned, but rather the realisation that our biological systems and associative vulnerabilities constrain what we do or do not learn, promoting the learning of specific associations [27]. Surprisingly, progress in learning theory has not had a significant impact on clinical research and practice in EDs until very recently.…”
Section: Basic Concepts Of Learning Theorymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Thus, the distinction between Pavlovian and instrumental conditioning is not only based on the type of events experienced and the experimental procedure used, but also includes what subjects learn (i.e., mental representations and learned associations in memory). On the other hand, unlike behaviourist positions, modern learning theory does not claim that anything can be learned or that all behaviour is learned, but rather the realisation that our biological systems and associative vulnerabilities constrain what we do or do not learn, promoting the learning of specific associations [27]. Surprisingly, progress in learning theory has not had a significant impact on clinical research and practice in EDs until very recently.…”
Section: Basic Concepts Of Learning Theorymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In the case of addictive behavior, extinction-based therapy became known as cue exposure therapy and consisted of repeated exposure to drug-associated cues in the absence of drug reward. Although cue exposure therapy was intuitively appealing, efficacy studies have indicated minimal utility, possibly because extinction training does not alter the original learning but, rather, results in the development of inhibitory learning that suppresses responding . Importantly, the ability of the inhibitory learning to oppose the original learning and suppress responding is constrained by a number of factors, including the passage of time (ie, spontaneous recovery), the presence of novel drug cues or contexts (ie, renewal), or the occurrence of drug reward following drug administration (ie, reinstatement) .…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Studies dating back to the 1970s have found higher US intensities drive greater long-term defensive responses (e.g., startle, freezing), fear generalization, and “dose”-dependently drive increased transmitter levels in the brain across species ( 86–89 ). Several other theories have also addressed aspects of associability ( 67 ). These studies suggest that the US plays an especially important role in regulating how a neutral stimulus (NS) is associated with an unconditioned aversive stimulus (US) to produce a conditioned stimulus (CS) and conditioned defensive response (CR).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This work has provided valuable insights into the associative strength (e.g., ΔV) between single and compound cues and the unconditioned stimulus (US) to produce a future behavioral CR (cf. ( 67 )). Moreover, these principles have been essential for understanding how memories are held in discrete, but distributed, networks of cells and circuits (e.g., “the engram”; ( 7, 18, 19, 68 ).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%