Ambiguity and context processing in human predictive learning.

Abstract

Two experiments explored the role of ambiguity on context processing by using relative stimulus validity designs in human predictive learning. Two groups of participants were trained with 2 stimulus compounds (XY and XZ). In Group TD (true discrimination), compound XY was always followed by the outcome, whereas compound XZ was never followed by it. In Group PD (pseudodiscrimination) the presentation of each compound was followed by the outcome in half of the trials. Experiment 1 found that pseudodiscrimination facilitated context dependency of reliable predictors regardless of whether they were trained in the same context in which pseudodiscrimination took place or in an alternative context in which true discrimination was conducted. Experiment 2 found context dependency of reliable predictors trained and tested in PD contexts, suggesting that the ambiguity in the meaning of the cues produced by pseudodiscrimination training is at least partially responsible for the context switch effects found in ambiguous situations in human predictive learning.

Concurrent extinction does not render appetitive conditioning context specific

“…Second, the most recent exposition of the theory must be refined so that clear a priori predictions regarding when attention will favor one mechanism of contextual control over another can be determined. Callejas-Aguilera and Rosas (2011) have predicted an effect of a context change in these experiments, yet without further clarifications, the direction of that change cannot be specified. In the absence of that clarification, the present results are at strong odds with the one clear hypothesis offered by the theory that has been demonstrated with humans, challenging the theory's present usefulness as a general principle.…”

“…The theory put forth by has undergone some revision (Callejas-Aguilera & Rosas, 2011;) since its initial presentation (Rosas, García-Gutiérrez, & Callejas-Aguilera, 2006). Initially, the theory suggested that attention might engage the context through a modulator-type mechanism such as that offered by Bouton (1993), or that the context may act as an occasion setter, or that the context could enter into a configural cue such as that proposed by Pearce (1987Pearce ( , 1994.…”

Attention and associative learning in humans: An integrative review.

“…That is, the overall uncertainty associated with the AB compound is lower than that associated with the CD compound, and so²on the basis of the idea (raised earlier) that overall uncertainty may be the crucial determinant of attention (Pearce & Hall, 1980)²the uncertainty principle anticipates a reduction in attention to cues belonging to a low-uncertainty compound (A and B) relative to cues in a highuncertainty compound (C and D). 3 Other studies that are consistent with both the predictiveness and uncertainty principles have examined how attention to contexts varies as a function of the information learned in them (Abad, Ramos-Alvarez & Rosas, 2009;Callejas-Aguilera & Rosas, 2010;Gawronski, Rydell, Vervliet & De Houwer, 2010;Leon, Abad & Rosas, 2011;Nelson, Lamoureux & Leon, 2013;Rosas & Callejas-Aguilera, 2006). In essence, in these studies people initially learn that whenever Mr X eats a particular food (say steak) in restaurant R he suffers illness, but other foods eaten in this restaurant do not cause illness.…”

The functions of contexts in associative learning

“…For example, contextual control of behavior and thought can be achieved by instructing subjects that an event to be remembered took place in a particular location (Callejas-Aguilera & Rosas, 2010; Orinstein, Urcelay, & Miller, 2010), or by the semantic attributes of the to be remembered items, as has been documented in verbal learning (Tulving & Thomson, 1973). However, the constituents of context are not limited to the conventional sensory modalities.…”