Excitation and inhibition in unblocking.

Holland, Peter C.

doi:10.1037/0097-7403.14.3.261

Cited by 57 publications

(98 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, previous data provide some support for the first of these claims. Holland (1988;Exps. 3 and 4) found that in a number of circumstances, downshifts from a two-reinforcer sequence to a single reinforcer simultaneously produced both excitatory and inhibitory learning about the added cue.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Holland and Gallagher (1993b) found that rats acquired substantial excitatory learning about the added auditory CS, supporting models like Pearce and Hall's (1980). Although some investigations using downshift procedures have revealed inhibitory learning (e.g., Cotton, Goodall, & Mackintosh, 1982;Holland, 1988, Wagner, Mazur, Donegan, & Pfautz, 1980, the frequent observation of substantial excitatory learning (e.g., Bucci, Holland, & Gallagher, 1998;Dickinson, et al, 1976;Dickinson & Mackintosh, 1979;Holland, 1984Holland, , 1988Holland & Gallagher, 1993b) has been a major source of support for the claim that the disconfirmation of reinforcement expectancies can enhance processing of CSs. Indeed, as we discuss later in this article, we have used excitatory learning in unblocking as a tool for investigating brain mechanisms involved in attentional processes such as those specified in the Pearce-Hall (1980) model (Bucci, et al, 1998;Holland & Gallagher, 1993b.…”

mentioning

confidence: 90%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Variations in Unconditioned Stimulus Processing in Unblocking.

Holland

Kenmuir

2005

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Three experiments examined the mechanisms by which downward shifts in reinforcer value influence learning in appetitive unblocking procedures. The downward shift was accomplished by omitting the second of a two-reinforcer sequence (food-food or food-sucrose). Performance of normal rats was compared with that of rats with lesions of the central nucleus of the amygdala, which are thought to interfere with surprise-induced enhancements of event processing. The results suggested that in normal rats, omission of the second reinforcer enhanced processing of the first reinforcer, rather than processing of the conditioned stimuli, and that lesions of the central nucleus eliminated this enhancement. The roles of reinforcement error signals in conditioning were discussed.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 90%

Variations in Unconditioned Stimulus Processing in Unblocking.

Holland

Kenmuir

2005

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…First comes evidence from a study of unblocking by reinforcer addition by Holland (1988), in which US2 was qualitatively different from US1 (sucrose solution vs. solid food pellets) and generated a conditioned response with a different response topography, such that, on test, it was possible to determine the nature of learning about the added CS on compound trials. This experiment indicated that the major function of the added US2 was to enhance the development of associations between the added CS and the original reinforcer, US1.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Second come demonstrations of excitatory unblocking as a result of the omission of an expected reinforcer (Dickinson et al, 1976;Dickinson & Mackintosh, 1979;Holland, 1984Holland, , 1988. In these studies, trials on which Cue A is followed by US1 and then US2 precede trials on which Cue AB is followed by US1 alone.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Outcome Specificity of Learned Predictiveness Effects: Parallels Between Human Causal Learning and Animal Conditioning.

Pelley¹,

Oakeshott²,

Wills³

et al. 2005

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two experiments examined the outcome specificity of a learned predictiveness effect in human causal learning. Experiment 1 indicated that prior experience of a cue-outcome relation modulates learning about that cue with respect to a different outcome from the same affective class but not with respect to an outcome from a different affective class. Experiment 2 ruled out an interpretation of this effect in terms of context specificity. These results indicate that learned predictiveness effects in human causal learning index an associability that is specific to a particular class of outcomes. Moreover, they mirror demonstrations of the reinforcer specificity of analogous effects in animal conditioning, supporting the suggestion that, under some circumstances, human causal learning and animal conditioning reflect the operation of common associative mechanisms.In the field of animal conditioning, it is relatively well established that experience of a predictive (or nonpredictive) relation between a conditioned stimulus (CS) and an unconditioned stimulus (US) appears to affect the processing power devoted to learning about that CS on subsequent learning episodes. One model of such learned predictiveness effects in animal conditioning is that proposed by Mackintosh (1975), which states that the change in associative strength (⌬V) for CS A on each learning episode is given bywhere V A represents the associative strength of CS A, S is a constant learning-rate parameter, and is the asymptote of conditioning supportable by the US occurring on that trial. ␣ A represents the associability of Cue A. Mackintosh allowed associability to change as a result of experience of a cue's predictiveness, with animals proposed to devote more processing power to stimuli that are uniquely successful in their predictions. Specifically, Cue A maintains a high associability to the extent that it is a better predictor of the outcome of the current trial than are all other cues present. Conversely, associability decreases if the outcome is predicted by other events at least as well as by Cue A. The extent to which the outcome is predicted by Cue A is represented by the absolute value of the error term ( Ϫ V A ). These ideas can therefore be encapsulated in the following rules:andwhere V Z is the associative strength of all stimuli other than Cue A present on that trial. The size of the change in associability on each trial is proportional to the magnitude of these inequalities. It should be noted that this is not the only theory of associative learning to incorporate a variable associability mechanism. For instance, Pearce and Hall (1980) proposed an alternative approach that, although it takes a very different view of the way associability operates, is able to predict many of the same learned predictiveness effects as is the Mackintosh (1975) model. That said, the PearceHall model is less readily applied to the particular experiments dealt with in the current article (see the General Discussion), and, hence, the approach to associability take...

show abstract

Reinforcement Learning

Dayan

2002

Stevens' Handbook of Experimental Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One way to speed up reinforcement learning is to enable learning to happen simultaneously at multiple resolutions in space and time. This paper shows how to create a É-learning managerial hierarchy in which high level managers learn how to set tasks to their sub-managers who, in turn, learn how to satisfy them. Sub-managers need not initially understand their managers' commands. They simply learn to maximise their reinforcement in the context of the current command. We illustrate the system using a simple maze task.. As the system learns how to get around, satisfying commands at the multiple levels, it explores more efficiently than standard, flat, É-learning and builds a more comprehensive map.

show abstract

Excitation and inhibition in unblocking.

Cited by 57 publications

References 22 publications

Variations in Unconditioned Stimulus Processing in Unblocking.

Variations in Unconditioned Stimulus Processing in Unblocking.

The Outcome Specificity of Learned Predictiveness Effects: Parallels Between Human Causal Learning and Animal Conditioning.

Reinforcement Learning

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About