Overshadowing and associability change: Examining the contribution of differential stimulus exposure

Jones, Peter M.; Haselgrove, Mark

doi:10.3758/s13420-012-0089-z

Cited by 5 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We proposed that this was due to differences in the conditions of exposure (in compound or in isolation), and tested this prediction by using an overshadowing procedure that equated these conditions. In this case, we observed the opposite of our initial result—lower associability for the overshadowed cue than for a control cue that had higher associative strength (Jones & Haselgrove, 2013). The parallels between this series of experiments and the present examination of associability changes during blocking are obvious.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 96%

“…Like the present Experiment 1, this was a surprising result that did not initially seem to be compatible with Mackintosh's (1975a) model of learning. Further examination, however, revealed that a similar effect could be produced by presenting the stimuli according to the same schedule in the absence of reinforcement (Jones & Haselgrove, 2013). We proposed that this was due to differences in the conditions of exposure (in compound or in isolation), and tested this prediction by using an overshadowing procedure that equated these conditions.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Blocking and associability change.

Jones¹,

Haselgrove²

2013

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Blocking of learning about a conditioned stimulus (the "blocked" cue) occurs when it is trained alongside an additional stimulus (the "blocking" cue) that has been previously presented with the outcome. A number of theories (e.g., N. J. Mackintosh. 1975a. A Theory of Attention: Variations in the Associability of Stimuli With Reinforcement. Psychological Review, 82, 276-298; J. M. Pearce & G. Hall. 1980. A Model for Pavlovian Learning: Variation in the Effectiveness of Conditioned But Not Unconditioned Stimuli. Psychological Review, 87, 532-552) account for this attenuation in learning by proposing that attention paid to the blocked cue is restricted. In three experiments, we examined the associability of both blocked and blocking cues. In Experiment 1, rats were trained with a blocking protocol before being given a test discrimination composed of two components; one of these components required the use of the previously blocked cue as a discriminative stimulus, and the other component was soluble by using the blocking cue. To our surprise, the component that depended on the blocked cue was more readily solved than the component dependent on the blocking cue. The results of Experiments 2 and 3 suggest that this is due to the quantity of exposure that each stimulus received during initial training. Implications for theories of blocking, and more widely associative learning, are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 96%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Blocking and associability change.

Jones¹,

Haselgrove²

2013

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Cues that are presented without any consequences appear to lose associability when they are later paired with a meaningful outcome (the latent inhibition effect; see Holmes & Harris, 2010, for a review). It is possible that this process still occurs even when cues are presented with reliable consequences (e.g., Jones & Haselgrove, 2013; Kaye & Pearce, 1984). Latent inhibition effects have been notoriously difficult to demonstrate in humans (see Byrom et al, 2018), but if they were to have a substantial impact on cue associability in this type of explicit learning task, then they could contribute to greater attention being paid to the rarer of two predictive cues.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Cues that are presented without any consequences appear to lose associability when they are later paired with a meaningful outcome (the latent inhibition effect, seeHolmes & Harris, 2010 for a review). It is possible that this process still occurs even when cues are presented with reliable consequences (e.g Jones & Haselgrove, 2013;.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Attention biases in the inverse base-rate effect persist into new learning

Don

Livesey

2021

Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The inverse base-rate effect is a tendency to predict the rarer of two outcomes when presented with cues that make conflicting predictions. Attention-based accounts of the effect appeal to prioritised attention to predictors of rare outcomes. Changes in the processing of these cues are predicted to increase the rate at which they are learned about in the future (i.e., their associability). Our previous work has shown that the development of the inverse base-rate effect is accompanied by greater overt attention to the rare predictor while participants made predictions, and during feedback, and these biases change in different ways depending on the stage of training and global base-rate differences. It is unknown whether these gaze patterns reflect the manner in which cues are prioritised for learning or are merely a consequence of learning what the cues predict. This study tested whether the associability of common and rare predictors differed, and if so, how this difference changed as a function of training length and the presence of base-rate differences in the outcomes. Experiment 1 tested cue associability using a second learning task presented after either short or long training. The results suggest an associability advantage for rare predictors that weakens with extended training and is not strongly affected by the presence of global base-rate differences. However, Experiment 2 showed a clear effect of base-rate differences on choice after very brief training, indicating that attention biases as measured by associability change are not sufficient to produce the inverse base-rate effect.

show abstract

“…This effect has subsequently been reported in a diverse range of species including rats (e.g., Bonardi, 1991;Dopson, Pearce, Haselgrove, 2009;Jones & Haselgrove, 2013, Mackintosh, 1975, mice (Sanderson, Jones & Austen, 2016), snails (Prados et al, 2013), honeybees (Cheng & Spetch, 2001;Guerrieri, Lachit, Gerber & Giurfa, 2005) and humans (Crookes & Moran, 2003;Dickinson, Shanks & Eveden, 1984;Le Pelley, Oakeshott, McLaren, 2005), and a variety of theoretical accounts have been provided in order to account for its ubiquitous nature. According to the performance-deficit account an association is formed between the US and the additional element of the compound (X), but the expression of this association (X -US) is prevented during a testing phase (e.g., Acrediano, Escobar & Miller, 2004;Denniston, Savastano & Miller, 2001;Miller & Matzel, 1988).…”

mentioning

confidence: 94%

Interactions between the elements of an outcome in human associative learning.

Quigley

Haselgrove

2020

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Learning and Cogniti

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When a cue is established as a reliable predictor of an outcome (A-O1), this cue will typically block learning between an additional cue and the same outcome if both cues are subsequently trained together (AB-O1). Three experiments sought to explore whether this effect extends to outcomes in humans using the food allergist paradigm. In all three experiments an outcome facilitation effect was observed as opposed to outcome blocking. That is, prior learning about an element of an outcome compound (A-O1) appeared to facilitate learning about a novel outcome when (A-O2) these outcomes were presented together (A-O1 O2) relative to a control stimulus that first received C-O3 trials prior to C-O1 O2 trials. In Experiment 2, however, participants were also presented with an additional set of control trials, which were presented during Stage 2 only and reliably predicted the outcome compounds. At test participants displayed more learning about these additional control trials relative to the blocked outcomes, thus displaying an outcome blocking effect alongside an outcome facilitation effect. In Experiment 3 a one-trial outcome blocking procedure was employed in order to distinguish theoretical accounts of these findings. This procedure revealed an outcome facilitation effect but not an outcome blocking effect. These results can be understood in terms of an account derived from Wagner's (1981) model. The implications of these findings are discussed.

show abstract

Overshadowing and associability change: Examining the contribution of differential stimulus exposure

Cited by 5 publications

References 26 publications

Blocking and associability change.

Blocking and associability change.

Attention biases in the inverse base-rate effect persist into new learning

Interactions between the elements of an outcome in human associative learning.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About