Stimulus miscuing and dishabituation: electrodermal activity and resource allocation

A comparison between elemental and compound training of cues in retrospective revaluation

“…Our results are also consistent with recent reports of interaction between elementally trained cues (e.g., Escobar, Arcediano, & Miller, 2001;Escobar, Matute, & Miller, 2001;Matute & Pineño, 1998a, 1998b, as well as with several reports that show interaction between cues that have received differential (i.e., elemental) inhibition training (e.g., Lipp et al, 1993;Packer & Siddle, 1989;Siddle, 1985;Siddle et al, 1990). Moreover, some of the comparisons of the elemental and compound inhibition procedures that have been reported in the literature are also consistent with the results of Experiment 1.…”

“…For example, several researchers have reported attenuated responding to a target cue, X, if a series of X-O pairings intermixed with A-no-O trials are followed by one or more A-O trials (Lipp & Dal Santo, in press;Lipp, Siddle, & Dall, 1993;Packer & Siddle, 1989;Siddle, 1985;Siddle, Broekhuizen, & Packer, 1990). In these studies, the outcome is miscued during Phase 2 by the cue that predicts its absence (A).…”

Interference between Elementally Trained Stimuli Can Take Place in One Trial

“…Experiment 1 replicated and extended the miscuing effect reported by Siddle and his colleagues (Lipp et al, 1993;Packer & Siddle, 1989;Siddle et al, 1990) using just one Phase 2 trial. Experiment 2 added evidence against the explanation of this effect as backward blocking by context.…”

“…Experiment 1 replicated and extended the miscuing effect reported by Lipp et al (1993), Packer and Siddle (1989), and Siddle et al (1990), who had used a single trial during Phase 2. This suggests that the acquisition of an inhibitory association between the absent cue and the outcome is not an explanation for that effect.…”

“…Interestingly, some prior experiments in the literature suggest that the effect could still be obtained with just one A → O trial. For example, Siddle and his colleagues (Lipp, Siddle, & Dall, 1993;Packer & Siddle, 1989;Siddle, Broekhuizen, & Packer, 1990) have reported evidence of a miscuing effect which is similar to the effect observed by Pineño (1998a, 1998b) and that occurs with just one Phase 2 trial. In the miscuing experiments subjects typically receive X → O/A → no O discrimination training during Phase 1, and then, in Phase 2, subjects receive one trial in which the outcome is miscued by the cue that predicts its absence (i.e., one A → O trial in Phase 2).…”