Proactive interference between cues trained with a common outcome in first-order Pavlovian conditioning.

Amundson, Jeffrey C.; Escobar, Martha; Miller, Ralph R.

doi:10.1037/0097-7403.29.4.311

Cited by 22 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 40 publications

(76 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…That is, would greater interference be seen when the interfering cue trained in the first phase and the target cue trained in the second phase originate from the same location? Amundson et al (2003) obtained proactive interference in first-order Pavlovian conditioning and investigated how several manipulations commonly used to control interaction between cues trained together also influenced interaction between cues trained apart, but they did not examine the effects of spatial similarity. The present experiment was designed using many of the parameters that they found yielded proactive interference.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For all subjects in this group stimulus presentations occurred at 3, 40, 60, and 95 min into the session for Schedule 1 (Days 4 and 6) and at 10, 36, 69, and 116 min into the session for Schedule 2 (Day 5). The footshock US presentations occurred simultaneously in all groups and lasted 0.5 s. The duration of the sessions in this and subsequent phases was 120 min, based on a prior demonstration of proactive interference in first-order Pavlovian conditioning in our laboratory (Amundson et al, 2003). This decreased the likelihood of obtaining a USpreexposure effect in Group Acq-Con (i.e., it presumably decreased the strength of association between the US and the context).…”

Section: Phase 1 Interfering Association Trainingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The interaction seen between cues trained apart with a common outcome is in many respects highly reminiscent of the interaction found between cues trained together (e.g., Miller & Escobar, 2002). For example, both deficits are often attenuated when the competing association is extinguished (e.g., with cues trained together, Blaisdell, Gunther, & Miller, 1999; with cues trained apart, Amundson et al, 2003). These similarities raise the question, do other manipulations that affect interaction between cues trained together have a similar effect on interaction between cues trained apart?…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…More recently researchers have used Pavlovian preparations to investigate retroactive interference and proactive interference in rats using a procedure akin to that used in the study of human verbal behavior (e.g., Amundson, Escobar, & Miller, 2003;Escobar, Matute, & Miller, 2001). In the investigation of proactive interference in rats, Amundson et al used an A-O, X-O paradigm (in which X and A were stimulus events and O was an outcome, in this case a footshock) to demonstrate that rats exhibited less conditioned responding to X at test if the X-O pairings were preceded by A-O pairings than if they were preceded by unpaired presentations of A and O.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Similarity in spatial origin of information facilitates cue competition and interference

Amundson

Miller

2007

Learning and Motivation

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two lick suppression studies were conducted with water-deprived rats to investigate the influence of spatial similarity in cue interaction. Experiment 1 assessed the influence of similarity of the spatial origin of competing cues in a blocking procedure. Greater blocking was observed in the condition in which the auditory blocking cue and the auditory blocked cue originated at the same spatial location. Recent investigations have demonstrated that manipulations that impact competition between cues trained together have similar effects on interference between cues trained apart. Therefore, Experiment 2 investigated the influence of similarity of the spatial origin in proactive interference of Pavlovian conditioning by separately pairing two auditory cues with a common outcome, originating at the same spatial location or different spatial locations. Greater proactive interference was observed in the condition in which the interfering cue and target cue originated at the same spatial location. The results are considered in light of the possibility that a similar mechanism may underlie interference between cues trained apart and cue competition between cues trained together.Cue competition refers to situations in which the presence of a nontarget stimulus during reinforced training of a target cue attenuates conditioned responding to the target cue at the time of test. In other words, when two cues are compounded and paired with an outcome, an inverse relationship is observed between the behavioral control exerted by each of the cues when tested alone. Cue interference here refers to situations in which a target cue is paired with a reinforcer in Phase 1 (or 2) and a nontarget cue is paired with a reinforcer in Phase 2 (or 1), such that the nontarget cue trials impair the behavioral control of the target cue that would otherwise result. Alternatively stated, cue competition refers to a deleterious interaction between cues trained together, whereas cue interference refers to a deleterious interaction between cues trained apart.The contemporary associative analysis of cue interaction has focused almost exclusively on the examination of cues that are presented in compound at some point during training (e.g., blocking, overshadowing, and the relative stimulus validity effect). In a blocking preparation (Kamin, 1968;Lashley, 1942), the blocking stimulus (A) is paired with an unconditioned stimulus (US) in an initial phase of treatment (i.e., A-US trials in Phase 1). The blocking cue (A) is then paired with the blocked cue (X) and the US in a subsequent phase of treatment (i.e., AX-US trials in Phase 2). The compound training trials facilitate Cue A competing with Cue X; thus, at the time of test weaker responding to Cue X is observed relative to a control condition that had not received prior training with A. The ability of a theory to account for such interaction between cues presented together is considered a critical benchmark for contemporary models Mailing Address: Ralph R. Miller,

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Phase 1 Interfering Association Trainingmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Similarity in spatial origin of information facilitates cue competition and interference

Amundson

Miller

2007

Learning and Motivation

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, both interference and competition appear to be reversible without further training with the target stimulus; this can be effected through massive extinction of the interfering or competing association (e.g., Amundson, et al, 2003;Kaufman & Bolles, 1981). Such similarities suggest that a single mechanism might be responsible for both interference and competition.…”

Section: Stimulus Interferencementioning

confidence: 99%

Challenges Facing Contemporary Associative Approaches to Acquired Behavior

Miller¹

2006

CCBR

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite the considerable success of contemporary associative models of learning in stimulating new behavioral research and modest success in providing direction to both neuroscience and psychotherapy, these models are confronted with at least three challenges. The first challenge is to the assumption that animals encode only one or a few summary statistics to capture what has been experienced over many training trials. This assumption is contrary to overwhelming evidence that the brain retains episodic information. The second challenge is that the learning-performance distinction has been largely ignored. Most models erroneously assume that behavior is a nearly perfect reflection of what has been encoded. The third challenge is to account for interactions between stimuli that have been presented separately (e.g., stimulus interference) as well as between stimuli that have been presented together (e.g., stimulus competition).The purpose of this review is to assess the common denominators of most contemporary associative models of learning as a group (as opposed to specific models), with an emphasis on the major challenges facing these models. By associative, I am referring to models designed to account for Pavlovian responding, although these models have often been extended quite successfully to instrumental behavior as well. The qualifier contemporary is necessary because new associative models are likely to be proposed in the future that do not subscribe to these common denominators. Miller and Escobar (2001) discussed the dangers of contrasting whole families of models rather than specific models. Here I try to minimize this danger by limiting my remarks to families of contemporary models rather than families of models including past and future instances. There will also be some discussion of the major alternatives to contemporary associative models in order to appreciate how well they address the problems confronting associative models. The paper is organized around three basic problems: the assumption that animals encode only summary statistics about prior experiences, the assumption that behavior is a nearly veridi-

show abstract

Front Matter of Volume 3

2017

Learning and Memory: A Comprehensive Reference

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Proactive interference between cues trained with a common outcome in first-order Pavlovian conditioning.

Cited by 22 publications

References 40 publications

Similarity in spatial origin of information facilitates cue competition and interference

Similarity in spatial origin of information facilitates cue competition and interference

Challenges Facing Contemporary Associative Approaches to Acquired Behavior

Front Matter of Volume 3

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About