Blocking of a CS–US association by a US–US association.

Goddard, Murray J.; Jenkins, H. M.

doi:10.1037/0097-7403.14.2.177

Cited by 29 publications

(45 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It is possible that the response rate in the stimulus was determined by conditioning to the CS-US interval (Bitterman, 1964;Black, 1963;Gibbon et aI., 1977;Salafia et aI., 1975;Schneiderman & Gormezano, 1964), and the response rate in the nonstimulus period was determined by conditioning to the context (Goddard & Jenkins, 1988;Tomie, 1981). These two associative mechanisms could in principle produce higher response rates during the stimulus to shorter stimulus durations (right panels of Figure 4) and higher response rates during the non stimulus to shorter cycle durations (left panels of Figure 4).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Independent effects of stimulus and cycle duration in conditioning: The role of timing processes

Kirkpatrick

Church

2000

Animal Learning & Behavior

108

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rats received delay conditioning procedures with a white-noise conditioned stimulus (CS), a food unconditioned stimulus (US),and head entries into the food cup as the conditioned response. The stimulus duration (S) and the interval between food deliveries (C) were varied between groups: S =15,30, 60, and 120 sec; C =90, 180,and 360 sec. The stimulus/cycle duration ratio was negatively related to the asymptotic level of conditioning but had no effect on the rate of acquisition. Conditioning and timing of responses emerged together in training. Timingoccurred during the CS-US interval (lSI) and the US-US interval (ITI),as evidenced by increasing response rate gradients that were steeper for shorter intervals. The effects of the stimulus/cycle ratio on conditioning were attributed to independent timing of the S and C durations. Serial-, parallel-, and single-process accounts of conditioning and timing are compared. Because the total expectation (H) is the same during the stimulus (S) and cycle (C), the expectation densities (h s and he) are inversely related to the durations of the intervals (stimulus or cycle). The decision ofwhether to respond to a given stimulus is determined by the value of the ratio of the heights of the two expectation densities:If r exceeds a threshold, b, then responding will emerge to the stimulus.actually used the cycle/stimulus ratio, which resulted in an inverse relationship with cycles to acquisition criterion.) Recent studies have also reported the SIC ratio effect in a goal-tracking paradigm in rats (Holland, 2000;Lattal, 1999). To explain the SIC ratio effect on conditioning, Gibbon and Balsam (1981; and, later, Gallistel & Gibbon, 2000) proposed a two-stage model in which acquisition of conditioned responding to a stimulus (anincrease in the rate or probability of responding during the stimulus as a function of training) occurred first and timing of the stimulus duration (an increase in the rate or probability of responding over the duration of the stimulus) occurred much later.In the conditioning mechanism proposed by Gibbon and Balsam (1981), a given reinforcer supports a certain total expectancy, H, that is spread uniformly over the duration of the stimulus and over the duration of the cycle. This creates expectation densities for the stimulus (h s ) and cycle (he):Two temporal variables that affect the acquisition of conditioned responding in a delay conditioning procedure are the stimulus duration (the interval from conditioned stimulus [CS] onset to unconditioned stimulus [US] delivery) and the cycle duration (the time between successive US deliveries). The strength and rate of conditioning are inversely related to stimulus duration in several paradigms, including nictitating membrane in

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Independent effects of stimulus and cycle duration in conditioning: The role of timing processes

Kirkpatrick

Church

2000

Animal Learning & Behavior

108

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The added variability does not change the density of food delivery, which presumably affects the strength of context conditioning (Goddard & Jenkins, 1988;Tomie, 1981); it also does not alter the degree to which the temporal cue predicts food delivery in advance of the onset of the stimulus. If either of these factors is important in determining the salience of the temporal cue, then we would expect to replicate the results of Experiment 1, even with the addition of variability to the food-food interval.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Stimulus and temporal cues in classical conditioning.

Kirkpatrick¹,

Church²

2000

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In 2 experiments, separate groups of rats were given stimulus conditioning, temporal conditioning, untreated control and (in Experiment 2) learned irrelevance control procedures, followed by a compound with both stimulus and temporal cues. Stimulus conditioning consisted of a random 15-s duration conditioned stimulus (CS) followed by food; temporal conditioning consisted of food-food intervals of fixed 90 s (Experiment 1) or fixed 75 + random 15 s (Experiment 2). The stimulus group abruptly increased responding after CS onset, and the temporal group gradually increased responding over the food-food interval. When the food-food interval was fixed 90 s, the temporal cue exerted stronger control in the compound, whereas when the food-food interval was fixed 75 + random 15 s, the stimulus cue exerted stronger control. The strength of conditioning, temporal gradients of responding, and cue competition effects appear to reflect simultaneous timing of multiple intervals.A common view of classical conditioning is that an association is formed between the conditioned stimulus (CS) and the unconditioned stimulus (US). In associative theories of conditioning (e.g., Mackintosh, 1975;Pearce & Hall, 1980;Rescorla & Wagner, 1972), strength accrues to stimuli that are present at the time of US occurrence, and it accrues uniformly over the duration of a stimulus. Although associative theories can account for many of the phenomena of conditioning such as acquisition, extinction, blocking, and overshadowing, they do not assign any role of temporal content in conditioning, nor do they attempt to account for any changes in response strength over the duration of the stimulus.There are a number of well-established facts of conditioning that indicate that temporal variables are important contributors to the conditioning process; (a) CS-US interval, trace interval, and intertrial interval durations all affect the acquisition of conditioned responses; and (b) a fixed time between the CS onset and US occurrence produces response timing relative to CS onset (inhibition of delay), and a fixed time between successive USs produces response timing relative to the time of the occurrence of the last US (temporal conditioning). To accommodate these phenomena, theories of conditioning need to include a representation of time since an event, such as CS onset or the prior US delivery.Real-time models of conditioning (e.g., Blazis, Desmond, Moore, & Berthier, 1986;Sutton & Barto, 1981) have integrated a representation of time with an associative mechanism. In these models, the perception of the CS changes over its time-course so that it is possible to discriminate different times within the CS. As a result of the Kimberly Kirkpatrick and Russell M. Church, Department of Psychology, Brown University.Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Kimberly Kirkpatrick, Department of Psychology, Box 1853, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island 02912. Electronic mail may be sent to Kim_Kirkpatrick@brown.edu. incorporation of a timing me...

show abstract

“…The conditioning literature has found that typical unconditioned stimuli can serve as predictors of other stimuli. For example, Goddard and Jenkins (1988) showed that if food appears at a regular schedule, one feeding event is learned to predict a subsequent event. Furthermore, this learning blocked the learning of another cue’s prediction of feeding.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Do salient features overshadow learning of other features in category learning?

Murphy¹,

Dunsmoor²

2017

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Learning and Cogniti

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Hundreds of associative learning experiments have examined how animals learn to predict an aversive outcome, such as a shock, loud sound, or puff of air in the eye. In this study, we reversed this pattern and examined the role of an aversive stimulus, shock, as a feature of a complex stimulus composed of several features, rather than as an outcome. In particular, we used a category learning paradigm in which multiple features predicted category membership and asked whether a salient, aversive feature would reduce learning of other category features through cue competition. Three experiments compared a condition in which one category had among its six features a painful “sting” (shock) and the other category a distinctive sound (the critical features) to a control condition in which the sting and sound were represented by much less salient (and not aversive) visual depictions. Subjects learned the categories and then were tested on their knowledge of all six features as predictors of the category label. Surprisingly, the experiments consistently found that the salient, aversive critical features did not reduce learning of other features relative to the control. Bayesian statistics gave positive evidence for this null result. Equally surprisingly, in a fourth experiment, a nonaversive salient feature (brightly colored patterns) increased learning of other features compared to the control. We explain the results in terms of attentional strategies that may apply in a category learning context.

show abstract

Blocking of a CS–US association by a US–US association.

Cited by 29 publications

References 39 publications

Independent effects of stimulus and cycle duration in conditioning: The role of timing processes

Independent effects of stimulus and cycle duration in conditioning: The role of timing processes

Stimulus and temporal cues in classical conditioning.

Do salient features overshadow learning of other features in category learning?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About