Recovery from the overexpectation effect: Contrasting performance-focused and acquisition-focused models of retrospective revaluation

Abstract

In four Pavlovian conditioned lick-suppression experiments, rats had two conditioned stimuli (CSs X and A) independently paired with footshock, followed by pairings of a compound of A and X with the footshock. On subsequent tests with CS X, less conditioned suppression was observed than in control subjects that lacked the compound AX®footshock trials. This overexpectation effect was reversed through posttraining extinction of CS A, a result consistent with both performance-and acquisitionfocused models of retrospectiverevaluation. However, only performance-focused models could account for how posttraining increases or decreases in the A-footshock temporal interval attenuate the overexpectation effect.

The dual role of the context in postpeak performance decrements resulting from extended training

“…In order to assess the interaction between overexpectation and the PPD, we implemented some parametric variations from Experiment 1 that would better approximate the typical parameters for overexpectation. We modeled these parameters after Blaisdell, Denniston, and Miller (2001). In their experiments, Blaisdell et al observed overexpectation when using 10-s cues and more trials (24) than the five trials used in Experiment 1.…”

“…Acclimation Following Blaisdell et al (2001), only 1 day of preexposure to the test context was conducted. Subjects were exposed to the testing chamber during a 60-min session with water lick tubes available.…”

Connectionism and Classical Conditioning

“…Nevertheless, overexpectation effects have been found in studies on Pavlovian fear conditioning in rats (Blaisdell, Denniston, & Miller, 2001;Kremer, 1978;Rescorla, 1970), appetitive conditioning in rats (Lattal & Nakajima, 1998;Rescorla, 1999) and autoshaping with pigeons (Khallad & Moore, 1996). Furthermore, overexpectation is predicted from the Rescorla-Wagner model, and counts as one of its most notable successes (Miller, Barnet & Grahame, 1995).…”

“…In Phase 2, CS B A and CS B B are presented simultaneously as a compound stimulus that is paired with the US. Overexpectation is the counterintuitive effect in which this second phase of training reduces responses to CS A and CS B when they are presented later as individual stimuli (Blaisdell et al, 2001;Khallad & Moore, 1996;Kremer, 1978;Lattal & Nakajima, 1998;Rescorla, 1970Rescorla, , 1999. …”

Determinants of cue interactions

“…Overexpectation refers to a decrease in responding to two independently reinforced CSs after they have been compounded and reinforced together (e.g., Blaisdell et al, 2001;Rescorla, 1970). Urcelay et al trained two CSs independently, and then compounded the two CSs and reinforced them together.…”