Blocking in rabbit eyeblink conditioning is not due to learned inattention: Indirect support for an error correction mechanism of blocking

Allen, Merrill J.; Padilla, Yahaira; Gluck, Mark A.

doi:10.1007/bf02734248

Cited by 4 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Left panel reproduces an adaptation of Allen et al 's results [60]. From left to right and top to bottom: Percentage of response to the tone during acquisition, to the tone-light compound during compound conditioning, to the light during the blocking test and during reacquisition for groups Blocking, Control and Naïve.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 88%

“…A simulation of the results of a blocking experiment published by Allen, Padilla and Gluck [60] was performed next. They conducted a simple study to test whether blocking in rabbit eye-blink conditioning is the result of a learned inattention mechanism [61], often mapped to the hippocampus [62], or modulated by an error correction process [1], considered to be mapped to the cerebellum (e.g., [63]).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

SSCC TD: A Serial and Simultaneous Configural-Cue Compound Stimuli Representation for Temporal Difference Learning

Mondragón¹,

Gray

Alonso

et al. 2014

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper presents a novel representational framework for the Temporal Difference (TD) model of learning, which allows the computation of configural stimuli – cumulative compounds of stimuli that generate perceptual emergents known as configural cues. This Simultaneous and Serial Configural-cue Compound Stimuli Temporal Difference model (SSCC TD) can model both simultaneous and serial stimulus compounds, as well as compounds including the experimental context. This modification significantly broadens the range of phenomena which the TD paradigm can explain, and allows it to predict phenomena which traditional TD solutions cannot, particularly effects that depend on compound stimuli functioning as a whole, such as pattern learning and serial structural discriminations, and context-related effects.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 88%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

SSCC TD: A Serial and Simultaneous Configural-Cue Compound Stimuli Representation for Temporal Difference Learning

Mondragón¹,

Gray

Alonso

et al. 2014

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This prediction is contradicted by reports of robust blocking at asymptote or close to asymptote. For instance, Allen, Padilla, and Gluck (2002) reported complete blocking (no responding to B ) after responding to AB in Phase 2 had been stable for 300 out of 500 trials (see Figure 4). Similar results have been reported by Burns, Burgos, and Donahoe (2011); Feldman (1975); Esber et al (2009).…”

Section: First-order Comparator Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Figure 4. Top: Data on blocking fromAllen et al (2002) in rabbits' eyeblink response. After initial conditioning with a tone conditional stimulus signaling an airpuff unconditioned stimulus, conditioning continued with a tone and light compound.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Solution of the comparator theory of associative learning.

Ghirlanda¹,

Ibadullayev²

2015

Psychological Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We derive an analytical solution of the comparator theory of associative learning, as formalized by Stout and Miller (2007). The solution enables us to calculate exactly the predicted responding to stimuli in any experimental design and for any choice of model parameters. We illustrate its utility by calculating the predictions of comparator theory in some paradigmatic designs: acquisition of conditioned responses, compound conditioning, blocking, unovershadowing, and backward blocking. We consider several versions of the theory: first-order comparator theory (close to the original ideas of Miller & Matzel, 1988), second-order comparator theory (Denniston, Savastano, & Miller, 2001), and sometimes-competing retrieval (Stout & Miller, 2007). We show that all versions of comparator theory make a number of surprising predictions, some of which appear hard to reconcile with empirical data. Our solution paves the way for a fuller understanding of the theory and for its empirical evaluation.

show abstract

“…In this case, neural coding of B will be impaired, thus leading to a blocking effect. The explanatory frame is put here not on learning but on the processing of sensory cues that are used as training stimuli.Blocking has been studied in several vertebrates such as pigeons (Good and Macphail 1994), rats (Kamin 1968;Batsell 1996;Batsell and Batson 1999;Wiltrout et al 2003), rabbits (Solomon 1977;Giftakis and Tait 1998;Allen et al 2002), rhesus monkeys (Beauchamp et al 1991;Waelti et al 2001), and humans (Miller and Matute 1996;Arcediano et al 1997). In invertebrates, research on blocking has been conducted in the mollusks Limax (Sahley et al 1981) and Hermissenda (Rogers and Matzel 1996), in the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster, and in the honeybee Apis mellifera.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Olfactory blocking and odorant similarity in the honeybee

Guerrieri¹,

Lachnit²,

Gerber³

et al. 2005

Learn. Mem.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Blocking occurs when previous training with a stimulus A reduces (blocks) subsequent learning about a stimulus B, when A and B are trained in compound. The question of whether blocking exists in olfactory conditioning of proboscis extension reflex (PER) in honeybees is under debate. The last published accounts on blocking in honeybees state that blocking occurs when odors A and B are similar (the "similarity hypothesis"). We have tested this hypothesis using four odors (1-octanol, 1-nonanol, eugenol, and limonene) chosen on the basis of their chemical and physiological similarity (experiment 1). We established a generalization matrix that measured perceptual similarity. Bees in the "block group" were first trained with an odor A and, in the second phase, with the mixture AB. Bees in the "novel group" (control group) were first trained with an odor N and, in the second phase, with the mixture AB. After conditioning, bees in both groups were tested for their response to B. We assayed all 24 possible combinations for the four odors standing for A, B, and N. We found blocking in four cases, augmentation in two cases, and no difference in 18 cases; odor similarity could not account for these results. We also repeated the experiments with those six odor combinations that gave rise to the similarity hypothesis (experiment 2: 1-hexanol, 1-octanol, geraniol) and found augmentation in one and no effect in five cases. Thus, blocking is not a consistent phenomenon, nor does it depend on odor similarity.

show abstract

Blocking in rabbit eyeblink conditioning is not due to learned inattention: Indirect support for an error correction mechanism of blocking

Cited by 4 publications

References 30 publications

SSCC TD: A Serial and Simultaneous Configural-Cue Compound Stimuli Representation for Temporal Difference Learning

SSCC TD: A Serial and Simultaneous Configural-Cue Compound Stimuli Representation for Temporal Difference Learning

Solution of the comparator theory of associative learning.

Olfactory blocking and odorant similarity in the honeybee

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About