Blocking of subsequent and antecedent events.

Esmoris-Arranz, Francisco J.; Miller, Ralph R.; Matute, Helena

doi:10.1037/0097-7403.23.2.145

Cited by 29 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Indeed, traditional blocking (i.e., with compound events in Phase 2) has been observed in animals regardless of whether the competing cues were antecedent or subsequent events in the association (EsmorisArranz, Miller, & Matute, 1997;Rescorla, 1980); the present research shows that antecedents may compete even if they are not trained in compound, and the experiments using training with multiple independent outcomes may be interpreted as showing that multiple outcomes may also compete even if not trained in compound.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 87%

Stimulus competition in the absence of compound conditioning

Matute

Pineño

1998

Animal Learning & Behavior

Self Cite

106

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Most associative theories have assumed that stimulus competition occurs only between conditioned stimuli (CSs) that are trained in compound. The present research investigated the possibility of competition between two CSs that were individually paired to the same unconditioned stimulus (US). We used human subjects in an anticipatory suppression analogue to Pavlovian conditioning. Experiment 1 showed that X+ training followed by A+ training resulted in impaired responding to X. This did not occur when A+ training preceded X+ training. Experiment 2 replicated the basic effect and showed that it did not occur when the Phase 2 training consisted of A-instead of A+ nor when the A+ pairings occurred in a second context. Experiment 3 showed that A+ pairings occurring in a second context could still produce the effect when X was tested in the context in which the A+ pairings had occurred, but not when X was tested in a context different from that used for A+ training. Collectively, these results suggest that individually trained CSs may compete with each other when one of those CSs is more strongly activated by the test context than the other one.One of the best known findings in conditioning research is that if a conditioned stimulus (CS) is a very good predictor of an unconditioned stimulus (US), the conditioned response elicited by other CSs that are trained in compound with the good predictor will be impaired. This effect is often called stimulus competition, or cue selection. A typical example is the forward-blocking effect (Kamin, 1968), in which a CS, A, is paired to the US during Phase I (i.e., A +),and then, in Phase 2, A is presented in compound with a novel CS, X, and followed by the US (i.e., AX +). This results in weaker responding to the target cue X in a subsequent test phase relative to responding by control subjects that were not exposed to the A+ pairings in Phase I. There are many other designs through which stimulus competition effects have been observed (e.g., Wagner, Logan, Haberlandt, & Price, 1968), but all of them have included compound training of the good predictor and the target cue. Consequently, despite many important discrepancies among the theories that attempt to explain these effects, all of them depend on the AX compound training as essential for A influencing responding

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 87%

Stimulus competition in the absence of compound conditioning

Matute

Pineño

1998

Animal Learning & Behavior

Self Cite

106

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…1), as well as competition between cues (see Miller & Escobar, 2002). This relative neglect of competition between outcomes, as compared with competition between cues, might have occurred because evidence of outcome competition is much scarcer (e.g., Esmoris-Arranz, Miller, & Matute, 1997;Miller & Matute, 1998;Rescorla, 1980). Few models have been developed in a Pavlovian framework to account for associative interference.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Spontaneous recovery and ABC renewal from retroactive cue interference

2011

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two conditioned suppression experiments with rats were conducted to determine whether the spontaneous recovery and renewal that are commonly observed in retroactive outcome interference (e.g., extinction) also occur in retroactive cue interference. Experiment 1 showed that a long delay between Phase 2 (the interfering phase) and testing produces a recovery from the cue interference (i.e., the delay enhanced responding to the target cue trained in Phase 1), which is analogous to the spontaneous recovery effect observed in extinction and other retroactive outcome interference procedures. Experiment 2 showed that, when target and interfering cues are trained in separate contexts and testing occurs in a different but familiar context, a recovery from the cue interference is also observed (i.e., the context shift enhanced responding to the target), which is analogous to ABC renewal from extinction. The results are discussed in terms of the possibility that similar associative mechanisms underlie cue and outcome interference.

show abstract

“…Additional parallels between cue and outcome interference are described in Escobar, Arcediano, and Miller (2001) and Escobar, Matute, and Miller (2001). Similarly, a number of parallels between cue and outcome competition have been noted (e.g., Esmoris-Arranz, et al, 1997). Comparisons between interference and competition have been far scarcer.…”

mentioning

confidence: 77%

“…Notably, the prominence of learning models designed specifically to account for overshadowing and blocking (e.g., Rescorla & Wagner, 1972) led investigators to focus their research primarily on competition between cues. Nevertheless, decrements in responding produced by competition between outcomes (see Cell 2 of Figure 1) have been reported (Esmoriz-Arranz, Miller, & Matute, 1997; Miller & Matute, 1998; Rescorla, 1980) and challenge models based on total error reduction such as that of Rescorla and Wagner. To date, few associative models of learning have been designed to account for outcome competition (but see Stout & Miller, 2007).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Retrospective revaluation of associative retroactive cue interference

2013

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two fear-conditioning experiments with rats assessed whether retrospective revaluation, which has been observed in cue competition (i.e., when compounded cues are followed with an outcome), can also be observed in retroactive cue interference (i.e., when different cues are reinforced in separate phases with the same outcome). Experiment 1 found that after inducing retroactive cue interference (i.e., X-outcome followed by A-outcome), nonreinforced presentations of the interfering cue (A) decreases interference with responding to the target cue (X), just as has been observed in retrospective revaluation experiments in cue competition. Using the opposite manipulation (i.e., adding reinforced presentations of A), Experiment 2 demonstrated that after inducing retroactive cue interference, additional reinforced presentations of the interfering cue (A) increases interference with responding to the target cue (X); alternatively stated, the amount of interference increases with the amount of training with the interfering cue. Thus, both types of retrospective revaluation occur in retroactive cue competition. The results are discussed in terms of the possibility that similar associative mechanisms underlie cue competition and cue interference.

show abstract

Blocking of subsequent and antecedent events.

Cited by 29 publications

References 42 publications

Stimulus competition in the absence of compound conditioning

Stimulus competition in the absence of compound conditioning

Spontaneous recovery and ABC renewal from retroactive cue interference

Retrospective revaluation of associative retroactive cue interference

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About