Signaling a change in cue-outcome relations in human associative learning

Pineño, Oskar; Miller, Ralph R.

doi:10.3758/bf03196034

Cited by 34 publications

(45 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Thus, whether or not testing occurs in an extinction context is confounded with whether a context change occurs at all. That confound is an important consideration as Pineño and Miller (2004) suggested that changes in context can come to generally signal a change in stimulus meaning, at least in humans. Rather than the context being associated with particular learning episodes and enabling the associations acquired in those episodes, as Bouton (1993) proposed, Pineño and Miller suggest that context changes simply signal that the meaning of a stimulus should change, switching between available meanings acquired throughout the experiment.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The extinction context enables extinction performance after a change in context

Nelson

Gregory

Sanjuan

2012

Behavioural Processes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One experiment with human participants determined the extent to which recovery of extinguished responding with a context switch was due to a failure to retrieve contextually-controlled learning, or some other process such as participants learning that context changes signal reversals in the meaning of stimulus – outcome relationships. In a video game, participants learned to suppress mouse clicking in the presence of a stimulus that predicted an attack. Then, that stimulus underwent extinction in a different context (environment within the game). Following extinction, suppression was recovered and then extinguished again during testing in the conditioning context. In a final test, participants that were tested in the context where extinction first took place showed less of a recovery than those tested in a neutral context, but they showed a recovery of suppression nevertheless. A change in context tended to cause a change in the meaning of the stimulus, leading to recovery in both the neutral and extinction contexts. The extinction context attenuated that recovery, perhaps by enabling retrieval of the learning that took place in extinction. Recovery outside an extinction context is due to a failure of the context to enable the learning acquired during extinction, but only in part.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The extinction context enables extinction performance after a change in context

Nelson

Gregory

Sanjuan

2012

Behavioural Processes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…2003; Tamai & Nakajima, 2000), and also when acquisition, extinction and testing take place in three different contexts (i.e., ABC renewal, Bemal-Gamboa et al, 2012;Pineño & Miller, 2004;Thomas, Larsen & Ayres, 2003).…”

mentioning

confidence: 96%

Extinction makes conditioning time-dependent.

Bernal-Gamboa

Callejas-Aguilera²,

Nieto³

et al. 2013

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two experiments explored whether forgetting of an association depended on previous extinction of a different association in rats. Experiment 1 found that when rats were conditioned and extinguished with flavor X, a subsequently acquired conditioned aversion to flavor Y was reduced by a 19-day retention interval, something that did not occur when X and the US were initially presented unpaired. Experiment 2 found that when rats received training and extinction in one of two tasks (conditioned aversion to sucrose in Experiment 2a, and running for water in a straight alley in Experiment 2b), subsequent learning of the alternative task was partially forgotten over the 19-day retention interval. These results are similar to those previously found when manipulating physical and conceptual contexts in rats and humans, respectively, and suggest that the passage of time may play a role similar to the one played by the change in physical or conceptual contexts on information retrieval.

show abstract

“…This model assumes that participants are generally able to tell apart the various cues. Accordingly, this model reflects the assumption made by previous analyses of the task (e.g., Newman et al, 1985; for a related issue in conditioning, see Pineno & Miller, 2004).We also consider a third model, called a mixed cue-valence model (MCV). This model assumes that learning is directed by two factors.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A formal cognitive model of the go/no-go discrimination task: Evaluation and implications.

Yechiam

Goodnight

Bates

et al. 2006

Psychological Assessment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article proposes and tests a formal cognitive model for the go/no-go discrimination task. In this task, the performer chooses whether to respond to stimuli and receives rewards for responding to certain stimuli and punishments for responding to others. Three cognitive models were evaluated on the basis of data from a longitudinal study involving 400 adolescents. The results show that a cuedependent model presupposing that participants can differentiate between cues was the most accurate and parsimonious. This model has 3 parameters denoting the relative impact of rewards and punishments on evaluations, the rate that contingent payoffs are learned, and the consistency between learning and responding. Commission errors were associated with increased attention to rewards; omission errors were associated with increased attention to punishments. Both error types were associated with low choice consistency. The parameters were also shown to have external validity: Attention to rewards was associated with externalizing behavior problems on the Achenbach scale, and choice consistency was associated with low Welsh anxiety. The present model can thus potentially improve the sensitivity of the task to differences between clinical populations. Keywords decision making; impulsivity; individual differences; cognitive models; reinforcement learningIn the last few years there has been increased interest in the use of complex choice tasks for studying individual differences. In fact, tasks such as the Iowa Gambling Task (Bechara, Damasio, Damasio, & Anderson, 1994) and the go/no-go discrimination task (Helmers, Young, & Pihl, 1995;Newman, Widom, & Nathan, 1985) have become part of the array of tasks used by clinical scientists. Clearly, the advantage of using such tasks is that they capture key aspects of impulsive and risky behavior exhibited in real-world situations. In particular, the go/no-go discrimination task assesses the ability of a participant to learn to respond to cues (in the form of numbers presented on the screen) that have been previously paired with rewards and withhold a response to cues that have been paired with punishments. It has been postulated that impulsive individuals respond more frequently to negative cues, owing to an increased focus on reward and an inability to alter this dominant response set (Newman, 1987). However, it is quite possible that other factors lead to poor performance in this go/no-go task.One such factor is a tendency to completely ignore the cues (in the form of numbers) and to focus on the rewards and punishments contingent on responding. Another factor is a slow learning rate due, for instance, to forgetting of the different cues. Finally, some individuals may respond more randomly, alternating between "go" and "no go" irrespective of outcomes, either because of wanting to explore the outcome further or because of such factors as boredom, tiredness, or frustration. Accordingly, there are multiple component processes that can lead to a behavior that may seem impulsive...

show abstract

Signaling a change in cue-outcome relations in human associative learning

Cited by 34 publications

References 29 publications

The extinction context enables extinction performance after a change in context

The extinction context enables extinction performance after a change in context

Extinction makes conditioning time-dependent.

A formal cognitive model of the go/no-go discrimination task: Evaluation and implications.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About