2002
DOI: 10.3758/bf03192828
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Associative learning and elemental representation: II. Generalization and discrimination

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

19
334
2
4

Year Published

2008
2008
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
2
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 266 publications
(359 citation statements)
references
References 58 publications
19
334
2
4
Order By: Relevance
“…Consequently, during the PIT test, the tobacco and chocolate stimuli retrieved an expectation of a range of their associated outcomes (S-O), which through a process of generalisation (McLaren & Mackintosh, 2002) and inference (Mitchell, De Houwer, & Lovibond, 2009), increased the expected probability of the instrumental outcomes (points) with shared category membership (Wills & Pothos, 2012), which in turn elicited the associated response through the O-R or ideomotor link. In short, PIT was mediated by an S-O-R inference between predictive and instrumental knowledge (Balleine, et al, 2011;).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Consequently, during the PIT test, the tobacco and chocolate stimuli retrieved an expectation of a range of their associated outcomes (S-O), which through a process of generalisation (McLaren & Mackintosh, 2002) and inference (Mitchell, De Houwer, & Lovibond, 2009), increased the expected probability of the instrumental outcomes (points) with shared category membership (Wills & Pothos, 2012), which in turn elicited the associated response through the O-R or ideomotor link. In short, PIT was mediated by an S-O-R inference between predictive and instrumental knowledge (Balleine, et al, 2011;).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…That is, the cigarette picture enhanced choice of tobacco points and the chocolate picture enhanced choice of chocolate points. The implication is that the pictures, through a process of generalisation (McLaren & Mackintosh, 2002) and inference (Mitchell, De Houwer, & Lovibond, 2009), increased the expected probability of the outcome with which it shared category membership (Wills & Pothos, 2012), which in turn, enhanced choice of that outcome. This nominal PIT test is comparable to standard PIT procedures insofar as the pictures should have been associated with their consummatory rewards in participants' extra-experimental history, but have never been reinforced contiguously with the instrumental responses, precluding interpretation of the cue effect on choice by the formation of a direction association between the stimulus and the response, which was the original objective of the PIT design (Balleine & Ostlund, 2007).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This generalization of conditioned fear shows that CRs are often elicited by stimuli not associated with the aversive event but which resemble the CS along a formal, perceptual dimension (Honig & Urcuioli, 1981). The study of stimulus generalization processes like this has a long history of research in both Pavlovian and instrumental/operant conditioning (e.g., Hull, 1943;McLaren & Mackintosh, 2002;Pavlov, 1927), but has only recently been extended to fear generalization in humans (Dunsmoor, Mitroff, & LaBar, 2009;Lissek et al, 2008Lissek et al, , 2010Vervliet, Vansteenwegen, Baeyens, Hermans, & Eelen, 2005;Vervliet, Vansteenwegen, & Eelen, 2004).…”
mentioning
confidence: 92%
“…Further, learning theory models of stimulus generalization and discrimination constitute a substantial literature that cannot be covered here due to space constraints (see, for example, McLaren & Mackintosh, 2002).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For example, gradient shifts have been obtained with complex stimulus dimensions based on abstract shapes (McLaren, Bennett, Guttman-Nahir, Kim, & Mackintosh, 1995;McLaren & Mackintosh, 2002;Wills & Mackintosh, 1998), spatial location (Cheng & Spetch, 2002;Cheng, Spetch, & Johnston, 1997;Cheng, Spetch, Kelly, & Bingman, 2006), and images of human faces (Derenne & Breitstein, 2006;Lewis & Johnston, 1999;Spetch, Cheng, & Clifford, 2004). in all of these cases, however, the stimulus dimension was relatively unfamiliar and, arguably, of little importance outside the experimental setting.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%