Some Constraints for Models of Timing: A Temporal Coding Hypothesis Perspective

Arcediano, Francisco; Miller, Ralph R.

doi:10.1006/lmot.2001.1102

Cited by 72 publications

(73 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This conflicts with views of causal learning where it is argued that contiguity is necessary for the formation of an association (e.g., Arcediano & Miller, 2002). However, other theories of learning have considered a more complex role for temporal information.…”

Section: Theoretical Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 83%

Structural awareness mitigates the effect of delay in human causal learning

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many studies have demonstrated that reinforcement delays exert a detrimental influence on human judgments of causality. In a free-operant procedure, the trial structure is usually only implicit, and delays are typically manipulated via trial duration, with longer trials tending to produce both longer experienced delays and also lower objective contingencies. If, however, a learner can become aware of this trial structure, this may mitigate the effects of delay on causal judgments. Here we tested this "structural-awareness" hypothesis by manipulating whether response-outcome contingencies were clearly identifiable as such, providing structural information in real time using an auditory tone to delineate consecutive trials. A first experiment demonstrated that providing cues to indicate trial structure, but without an explicit indication of their meaning, significantly increased the accuracy of causal judgments in the presence of delays. This effect was not mediated by changes in response frequency or timing, and a second experiment demonstrated that it cannot be attributed to the alternative explanation of enhanced outcome salience. In a third experiment, making trial structure explicit and unambiguous, by telling participants that the tones indicated trial structure, completely abolished the effect of delays. We concluded that, with sufficient information, a continuous stream of causes and effects can be perceived as a series of discrete trials, the contingency nature of the input may be exploited, and the effects of delay may be eliminated. These results have important implications for human contingency learning and in the characterization of temporal influences on causal inference.

show abstract

Section: Theoretical Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 83%

Structural awareness mitigates the effect of delay in human causal learning

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Rather, these data support recent considerations on the necessary and sufficient conditions for learning. These considerations can be found in work by Donahoe and colleagues cited above (Donahoe & Palmer, 2004;Donahoe & Vegas, 2004;Donahoe, 2014), but also in the Temporal Coding Hypothesis, or TCH (Arcediano & Miller, 2002). As an alternative to traditional learning models, TCH makes the assumption that temporal contiguity is a necessary and sufficient condition for learning.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Conditioned reinforcement and backward association

Prével

Rivière

Darcheville

et al. 2016

Learning and Motivation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the present study, excitatory backward conditioning was assessed in a conditioned reinforcement paradigm. The experiment was conducted with human subjects and consisted of five conditions. In all conditions, US reinforcing value (i.e. time reduction of a timer) was assessed in phase 1 using a concurrent FR schedule, with one response key leading to US presentation and the other key leading to no-US. In phase 2, two discrete stimuli, S+ and S-, were paired with US and no-US respectively using an operant contingency. For three groups, backward contingencies were arranged, and two of these were designed to rule out a trace (forward) conditioning interpretation of the results. The two other groups served as control conditions (forward and neutral conditions).Finally, in phase 3 for all groups the CSs were delivered in a concurrent FR schedule similar to phase 1, but with no US. Responding during phase 3 showed conditioned reinforcement effects and hence excitatory backward conditioning. Implications of the results for conditioned reinforcement models are discussed.

show abstract

“…Although the present experiments do not allow us to answer this question, a speculative and post hoc explanation can be entertained. The link formed between CS A and CS X due to their simultaneous presentation either could be a bidirectional association (i.e., A£X; see , 2005Arcediano & Miller, 2002;Gerolin & Matute, 1999) or could be composed of two independent unidirectional associations (i.e., A¡X and X¡A). In the former case, A-O trials would be expected to extinguish the bidirectional association, whereas in the latter case, A-O trials would be expected to extinguish the A¡X association, but not the X¡A association.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

When more is less: Extending training of the blocking association following compound training attenuates the blocking effect

Pineño

Urushihara

Stout

et al. 2006

Learning & Behavior

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Among the various phenomena reported in the associative-learning literature, few have encouraged as much research and development of new models as the blocking effect. In forward blocking (Kamin, 1968), responding to a target conditioned stimulus (CS), X, is impaired due to this CS's receiving pairings with an unconditioned stimulus (US) in compound with a second (blocking) CS, A, that was previously paired with the US on its own. Alternatively stated, the typical forward-blocking design consists of training with two different trial types in separate phases-A-US trials, followed by AX-US trials-and then presenting CS X during testing. The common observation is reduced responding to CS X, relative to a control condition in which pairings of an alternative stimulus (B) and the US are received during the initial phase of training, followed by AX-US trials. In backward blocking (e.g., Shanks, 1985), the order of presentation of the training trials is reversed: AX-US trials are followed by A-US trials and then by testing with CS X. Despite the different trial order, weak responding to CS X is sometimes observed at testing, relative to a

show abstract

Some Constraints for Models of Timing: A Temporal Coding Hypothesis Perspective

Cited by 72 publications

References 33 publications

Structural awareness mitigates the effect of delay in human causal learning

Structural awareness mitigates the effect of delay in human causal learning

Conditioned reinforcement and backward association

When more is less: Extending training of the blocking association following compound training attenuates the blocking effect

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About