Concurrent extinction does not render appetitive conditioning context specific

Nelson, James B.; Lombas, Andrés S.; León, Samuel P.

doi:10.3758/s13420-011-0023-9

Cited by 13 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Participants for whom suppression ratios on two out of the last three trials of the first phase of conditioning were not lower than the first trial were to be excluded (see also Nelson et al 2011b). In previous reports using this method (e.g., Nelson et al 2011aNelson et al , 2012 we excluded participants who had low pre-CS responding (average <5) as that procedure was successful in eliminating the occasional pre-CS response rate of zero for which calculation of a suppression ratio would be uninterpretable. However, in these experiments that criterion did not meet that goal successfully.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…With animals, the effect has been demonstrated in tasks that have involved, in one form or another, the use of liquids as conditioned stimuli (CSs) or reinforcers in thirsty rats (BernalGamboa et al 2013(BernalGamboa et al , 2014Rosas and Callejas-Aguilera 2007). However, using food reinforcers in hungry rats, Nelson et al (2011a) found no evidence of a loss in responding to a simple excitatory CS with a context switch when that responding was acquired while another CS was being extinguished. Thus, the generality of the account offered by ACTP with animals is somewhat tentative.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 93%

“…The same apparatus as was used in Nelson and Sanjuan (2006, 2008, 2009Nelson et al 2011a;Nelson et al 2012Nelson et al , 2013 was used here. The apparatus has been thoroughly described in Nelson and Sanjuan (2006) and the description here is adapted from Nelson and Sanjuan (2008) with permission.…”

Section: Apparatusmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Each cue is then tested in a different context to where it was learned. The general result is Brenewal^(e.g., Bouton and Bolles 1979;Nelson et al 2011a) with X, and a loss of response to T. Participants rate X as more likely to predict illness in the new context than in the training context where extinction took place, and rate T as less likely to produce the illness in the new context than in the training context. The result with T is the one of particular interest.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Extinction facilitated learning the bi-conditional discrimination when the contexts were correlated with the solution. The method produces renewal (e.g., Nelson et al 2011a) and evidence that extinction arouses attention to the contexts. The method is ideal for determining whether or not contextual control of simple conditioning will emerge when that conditioning is conducted in the face of ambiguity produced by the extinction of another CS with humans outside of the tasks used thus far in the literature.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Contextual control of conditioning is not affected by extinction in a behavioral task with humans

Nelson

Lamoureux

2015

Learn Behav

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Attentional Theory of Context Processing (ATCP) states that extinction will arouse attention to contexts resulting in learning becoming contextually controlled. Participants learned to suppress responding to colored sensors in a video-game task where contexts were provided by different gameplay backgrounds. Four experiments assessed the contextual control of simple excitatory learning acquired to a test stimulus (T) after (Exp. 1) or during (Exp. 2-4) extinction of another stimulus (X). Experiment 1 produced no evidence of contextual control of T, though renewal to X was present both at the time T was trained and tested. In Experiment 2 no contextual control of T was evident when X underwent extensive conditioning and extinction. In Experiment 3 no contextual control of T was evident after extensive conditioning and extinction of X, and renewal to X was present. In Experiment 4 contextual control was evident to T, but it neither depended upon nor was enhanced by extinction of X. The results presented here appear to limit the generality of ATCP. Rosas et al. 2006a, b) has routinely demonstrated that extinction conducted with one stimulus can lead to contextual control of learning about other stimuli. To illustrate, participants might initially learn that a food cue BX^predicts that fictitious patrons will get sick in the context of a certain restaurant. Then, they learn that X no longer produces illness; patrons consume X without consequence. During this second phase where extinction occurs, the participants also learn that a new cue BT^predicts illness. Here, we have two cues; one cue X has been conditioned and extinguished, the other cue T has simply been conditioned while the X was undergoing extinction. Each cue is then tested in a different context to where it was learned. The general result is Brenewal^(e.g., Bouton and Bolles 1979;Nelson et al. 2011a) with X, and a loss of response to T. Participants rate X as more likely to predict illness in the new context than in the training context where extinction took place, and rate T as less likely to produce the illness in the new context than in the training context. The result with T is the one of particular interest. A control condition that receives only conditioning of T, without extinction of X, shows no effect of a context change. Simple conditioning of T is not much affected by a context change. Contextual control of what was being learned about both X and T emerged during extinction of X. KeywordsThe result is predicted by ATCP as the theory assumes that contextual control will emerge whenever attention is directed to contexts, and a major contribution of the theory is explicitly specifying the conditions under which such attention will be aroused. The condition of most relevance to the research presented here is the presence of Bambiguity.^In this case the theory borrows from Bouton (e.g., 1993Bouton (e.g., , 1997 in assuming that when a stimulus is paired with different outcomes, multiple associations are formed (e.g., X ➔ Illness, X ➔...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 93%

Section: Apparatusmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Contextual control of conditioning is not affected by extinction in a behavioral task with humans

Nelson

Lamoureux

2015

Learn Behav

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Context change and associative learning

Rosas

Todd

Bouton

2013

WIRES Cognitive Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present article reviews the effects of changing the background context on performance in associative learning tasks in humans and animals. The findings are complementary and consistent over animal conditioning (Pavlovian and instrumental learning) and human predictive learning and memory paradigms. In many cases, a context change after learning can have surprisingly little disruptive influence on performance. Extinction, or retroactive interference treatments more generally, are more context-specific than the initial learning. Contexts become important if the participant is exposed to any of several treatments that involve prediction error, which may serve to increase attention to the context. Contexts also become important if they are given predictive or informational value. Studies of instrumental (operant) learning are further consistent with the idea that the context might also influence affordances that support voluntary actions. Context switch effects are not universal, but mainly occur when certain attention and perception processes can come into play.The present article provides a brief review of the role of context that has emerged in recent studies of associative learning. "Associative learning" is a term that is broadly used to refer to a range of learning phenomena that are studied in humans and other animals. Throughout the past century and the beginning of the present one, classical and instrumental conditioning became essential tools for the study of how organisms learn about their environment, as well as to understand some of the neurobiological mechanisms that underlie it 1 . In classical (or Pavlovian) conditioning, animals learn about events that occur in their environment. For example, in Pavlovian fear conditioning, rats might learn that the presentation of an auditory cue (e.g., a tone) predicts the occurrence of an aversive stimulus, such as a mild foot shock. In instrumental (or operant) conditioning, the rat's own behavior produces the reinforcer. For example, rats might be trained to press a lever to obtain a food pellet reinforcer. As we will illustrate in this paper, similar procedures have recently been used in the human experimental psychology laboratory to study human predictive, diagnostic, and instrumental learning 2, 3, 4 . Associative learning can also be used as a tool to understand how memory works in both human and nonhuman animals. Traditional list learning has been complemented by learning about the correlation between cues or responses and outcomes, akin to nonhuman animal classical and instrumental conditioning 5 . Most of the research has uncovered striking similarities between basic learning processes in human and nonhuman animals (for instance, compare 6 with 7 ).One insight about associative learning is that it never takes place in a vacuum--it always takes place in the presence of background stimuli or contextual cues. A goal of many studies of human and nonhuman associative learning has therefore been to understand what role, ifCorrespondence concerning...

show abstract