Postacquisition unexpected footshock disrupts appetitively motivated instrumental performance based on short-term retention

Miller, Ralph R.; Balaz, Mary Ann

doi:10.3758/bf03334693

Cited by 2 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The present results add to what is known of other sources of processing interference, such as exposure of subjects to multiple to-beremembered mazes (Roberts, 1981) or to surprising stimuli during the delay (Miller & Balaz, 1983). In contrast, Terry (1987) found that simply giving a food reward during the delay interval did not adversely affect retention.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 33%

Interference with spatial alternation by exposure to other mazes

Terry

1989

Bull. Psychon. Soc.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rats were trained in a spatial alternation task in an E-shaped maze, and then were tested for retention over 60-sec delays. The subjects received an interfering alternation trial during the delay interval in one of two other mazes: either a T-maze, or a parallel (P) maze with adjacent goal arms. The T-maze produced more alternation than did the P-maze. The main findings were that (1) the T-maze trial produced interference in retention of the target maze, and (2) the P-maze produced interference in retention of the target maze only when an error had occurred in the P-maze. These results suggest that interference occurs when the distractor event itself places demands on the processing resources of the subject, and thus competes with processing of the target memory.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 33%

Interference with spatial alternation by exposure to other mazes

Terry

1989

Bull. Psychon. Soc.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These findings are consistent with a distributive processing or limited capacity memory theory. According to Wagner's rehearsal theory, surprising stimuli are rehearsed longer in short-term memory (Maki, 1979; Terry & Wagner, 1975) and are more likely to interfere retroactively with rehearsal of previous stimuli already occupying short-term memory (Miller & Balaz, 1983; Wagner et al, 1973). This theory readily accommodates both the enhanced retention of nonrewarded locations and the retroactive interference effects produced by nonreward.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Interference with spatial memory has also been shown. Miller and Balaz (1983) interpolated an expected or surprising event in the delay interval of a food-rewarded delayed-alternation trial. There was significantly less alternation when a surprising shock followed the target than when an expected shock followed and less alternation, although not significant, when a surprising omission of shock followed the target event than when an expected absence occurred.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Retroactive interference effects of surprising reward omission on serial spatial memory.

Terry¹

1996

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Reward omission was used to produce retroactive interference in a serial delayed-alternation task. Rats were given forced choices in 3 T mazes presented in succession followed by free choices in which the alternate arm in each maze was rewarded. Nonreward during the delay between forced-and free-choice runs produced a decrement in performance (i.e., retroactive interference) in comparison to reward during the delay. Interference in retention of the first maze in a list occurred when the second maze contained surprising reward or omission (i.e., an outcome contrary to previous training in that maze) in comparison to expected reward or omission. In addition to producing retroactive interference, omission sometimes increased alternation in the maze in which it occurred. These results support a differential rehearsal hypothesis of spatial memory.The purpose of the present research was to study the short-term effects of reward and reward omission on the immediate retention of recently presented maze locations. Differential processing evoked by reinforcers is sometimes studied using a retroactive interference design, in which a reinforcing stimulus is presented during the retention interval after a to-be-remembered event. Such a comparison of reward presence or absence has produced mixed results. Harper, McLean, and Dalrymple-Alford (1993) found that food given during the delay impaired radial maze performance, particularly reducing retention of the most recently entered arms. They attributed this to the disruptive effect of consummatory activity during the delay interval on memory. In contrast, Kasprow (1987) found that retentioninterval reward enhanced performance of rats in a delayedalternation task, which he attributed to a reminder effect. Terry (1987), who also studied delayed alternation, did not note any difference between reward and omission presented during the retention interval.This discrepancy can be found in other memory tasks. Jans and Catania (1980) found that food access reduced delayed-response performance by pigeons. Medin, Reynolds, and Parkinson (1980), testing monkeys in delayed matching-to-sample tasks, obtained either retroactive facilitation or interference, depending on the similarity of the

show abstract

Postacquisition unexpected footshock disrupts appetitively motivated instrumental performance based on short-term retention

Cited by 2 publications

References 16 publications

Interference with spatial alternation by exposure to other mazes

Interference with spatial alternation by exposure to other mazes

Retroactive interference effects of surprising reward omission on serial spatial memory.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About