Learning as a General Process with an Emphasis on Data from Feeding Experiments

Revusky, Sam

doi:10.1007/978-1-4757-1299-5_1

Cited by 58 publications

(54 citation statements)

References 75 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Third, taste-toxicosis memories parallel shock-motivated memories in a number of significant ways, thereby providing additional support for the generality of the laws of learning (cf. Logue, 1979;Revusky, 1977;Seligman, 1970). …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Long-term retention of a conditioned taste aversion in preweanling and adult rats

Steinert

Infurna

Spear

1980

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The retention and extinction of a conditioned taste aversion after either short (6-day) or long (60-day) intervals was investigated in preweanling (I8-day-old) and adult rats. Taste-only and illness-only control conditions were employed, as were variations in the concentration of the US (holding Liel amount constant). Results indicated that after the short retention interval, retention of the taste aversion was equivalent for both ages. After the long interval, however, the I8-day-old rats exhibited significantly weaker taste aversion than their adult counterpartsinfantile amnesia. Manipulation of US concentration had no effect on the magnitude of the taste aversions for either age or retention interval. The results are discussed in terms of their implications for infantile amnesia and general laws of learning.Immature animals forget at a faster rate than do more mature animals (for reviews, see Campbell & Campbell & Spear, 1972;Spear, 1978Spear, , 1979, and this probably is also true for humans (Cohen & Gelber, 1975;Levy, 1960;Pancratz & Cohen, 1970). This accelerated rate of forgetting by younger organisms has been termed infantile amnesia. However, some recent evidence suggests that less infantile amnesia may occur when the information to be retained involves a particular class of events that may constitute a "highly prepared" association (Coulter, Collier, & Campbell, 1976;Spear, 1978). Ontogenetic studies of conditioned taste aversion (Campbell & Alberts, 1979; Klein, Mikulka, Domato, & Hallstead, 1976) provide some of the more convincing of this evidence.While long-term retention of taste-illness associations by adults is excellent (Biederman, Milgram, Heighington, Stockman, & O'Neil, 1974;Dragoin, Hughes, Devine, & Bentley, 1973), the data with respect to immature organisms are mixed. Specifically, Klein et al. (1976), using postweanling rats (23-dayold), and Campbell and Alberts (1979), who used preweanling (18-day-old) infant rats, have demonstrated retention equivalent to that of adults over retention intervals of 28 and 56 days. However, with rat pups 10 and 12 days of age, Campbell and Alberts (1979) did find poorer retention across long intervals. Both of these studies used LiCI as the unconditioned stimulus (US) and employed a singlebottle testing procedure. The data obtained with Preparation of this article was supported by grants from the National Science Foundation (BNS 74-24194 and BNS 78-02360) to the third author. We thank Norman "Richter for technical advice and assistance and Teri Tanenhaus for preparation of the manuscript. Requests for reprints should be sent to Norman E. Spear, Department of Psychology, State University of New York at Binghamton, Binghamton, New York 13901. these procedures suggest that, by 18 days of age, rat pups have attained adult levels of retention for a taste-illness association. In contrast to the findings of Campbell and Alberts (1979), Ader and Peck (1977) and Peck (Note 1) have reported relatively poor retention of all early (Zl-day-old rat pup) taste-ill...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Long-term retention of a conditioned taste aversion in preweanling and adult rats

Steinert

Infurna

Spear

1980

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The task for behavioral analysis is not to explain memory as such, but to understand the organizational and computational properties of organisms. It is not learning (in the sense of a mere effect of past experience) that is the problem (see Revusky, 1977), but rather the elementary rules and codes by which animals master complex tasks. I return to this theme later in connection with theories of classical conditioning.…”

Section: Notes To Chapter 14mentioning

confidence: 99%

Adaptive Behavior and Learning

Staddon

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Every day at about 4:30, Jazz, a Hungarian Vizsla dog, leaps up on the sofa and looks out for his owner who always comes home at 5:00. He doesn't need an internal clock because he has an acute sense of smell that allows him to measure how long his master has been absent. Explaining complex behavior in simple ways, this book is a fascinating exploration of the evolution, development and processes of learning in animals. Now in its second edition, there is increased emphasis on development, evolution and dynamics; new accounts of taxic orientation, reflex induction, habituation and operant learning in organisms; more discussion of spatial learning and the processes underlying it; expanded chapters on choice and completely new chapters on molar laws, classical conditioning theories and comparative cognition. J. E. R. Staddon provides a definitive summary of contemporary theoretical understanding suitable for graduates and advanced undergraduates.

show abstract

“…1978;Olton, Becker, & Handelmann, 1979;Rozin & Kalat, 1971;Schacter &Moscovitch, 1984;Shettleworth, 1972;Squire & Cohen, 1984;Tulving, 1983). Some researchers are not convinced of the need to postulate the existence of multiple memory systems, however, and maintain that the experimental evidence does not mandate rejecting the view of a unitary learning and memory system that is explainable by a single set of general principles or laws (Bitterman, 1975;Craik, 1983;Jacoby, 1983Jacoby, , 1984Kolers & Roediger, 1984;Logue, 1979;MacPhail, 1982;Revusky, 1977).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The evolution of multiple memory systems.

Sherry

Schacter²

1987

Psychological Review

813

396

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The existence of multiple memory systems has been proposed in a number of areas, including cognitive psychology, neuropsychology, and the study of animal learning and memory. We examine whether the existence of such multiple systems seems likely on evolutionary grounds. Multiple systems adapted to serve seemingly similar functions, which differ in important ways, are a common evolutionary outcome. The evolution of multiple memory systems requires memory systems to be specialized to such a degree that the functional problems each system handles cannot be handled by another system. We define this condition as functional incompatibility and show that it occurs for a number of the distinctions that have been proposed between memory systems. The distinction between memory for song and memory for spatial locations in birds, and between incremental habit formation and memory for unique episodes in humans and other primates provide examples. Not all memory systems are highly specialized in function, however, and the conditions under which memory systems could evolve to serve a wide range of functions are also discussed.Memory is a function that permits animals and people to acquire, retain, and retrieve many different kinds of information. We would like to thank Fergus Craik, Victoria Esses, Luc-Alain GiraIdeau, Robert Lockhart, David Olton, Paul Rozin, Sara Shettleworth, Larry Squire, Endel Tulving, and Derek Van der Kooy for their many helpful comments and Carol Macdonald for her help with preparation of this article.The order of authorship was determined by a coin toss at the Young Lok Restaurant, where most of the article evolved.Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to David F. Sherry, Department of Psychology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 1A1 or to Daniel L. Schacter, who is now at the Department of Psychology, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona 85721. 1978;Olton, Becker, & Handelmann, 1979;Rozin & Kalat, 1971;Schacter &Moscovitch, 1984;Shettleworth, 1972;Squire & Cohen, 1984;Tulving, 1983). Some researchers are not convinced of the need to postulate the existence of multiple memory systems, however, and maintain that the experimental evidence does not mandate rejecting the view of a unitary learning and memory system that is explainable by a single set of general principles or laws (Bitterman, 1975;Craik, 1983;Jacoby, 1983Jacoby, , 1984Kolers & Roediger, 1984;Logue, 1979;MacPhail, 1982;Revusky, 1977).The purposes of this article are to determine whether there are evolutionary grounds for favoring a unitary or a nonunitary view of memory and to bring together recent research on memory systems in humans and animals that bears on this problem. The principal question we address is whether the evolution of qualitatively distinct memory systems would be expected to occur or whether a single memory system that is characterized by increasing complexity and flexibility is the expected evolutionary outcome. We develop an argument that favors the former alternative and that...

show abstract

Learning as a General Process with an Emphasis on Data from Feeding Experiments

Cited by 58 publications

References 75 publications

Long-term retention of a conditioned taste aversion in preweanling and adult rats

Long-term retention of a conditioned taste aversion in preweanling and adult rats

Adaptive Behavior and Learning

The evolution of multiple memory systems.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About