Temporal Phrasing and Overshadowing in Rat Serial-Pattern Learning

Stempowski, Nannette K.; Carman, Heidi M.; Fountain, Stephen B.

doi:10.1006/lmot.1998.1021

Cited by 35 publications

(57 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Two recent experiments on the effects of temporal phrasing in rat serial pattern learning employed a similar strategy of applying different phrasing conditions to the same pattern of sequential elements to evaluate phrasing effects. Consistent with the views of Capaldi and associates, they showed that temporal intervals positioned at chunk boundaries facilitated serial-pattern learning by serving as discriminative cues that overshadowed associations between sequence items (Stempowski et al, 1999). One experiment showed that rat serial-pattern learning could be facilitated when distinct temporal intervals preceded chunk boundaries regardless of whether the intervals were longer or shorter than intervals within chunks.…”

supporting

confidence: 56%

“…A second experiment replicated the acquisition results of the first with a different, more difficult serial pattern. In addition, after both 14 and 35 days of acquisition with phrasing cues, cue removal produced severe deficits in tracking the first element of chunks, the element directly after the phrasing cues during acquisition (Stempowski et al, 1999). The results indicated that rats used both short and long temporal phrasing intervals as discriminative cues.…”

mentioning

confidence: 86%

“…The results indicated that rats used both short and long temporal phrasing intervals as discriminative cues. Furthermore, many of the finer details of the results could be accounted for by the additional assumption that phrasing cues overshadowed interitem associations (Stempowski et al, 1999). Stempowski et al's (1999) results, along with those of Capaldi et al (1984), clearly showed that discriminability and overshadowing are important factors mediating phrasing cue effects.…”

mentioning

confidence: 90%

“…Furthermore, many of the finer details of the results could be accounted for by the additional assumption that phrasing cues overshadowed interitem associations (Stempowski et al, 1999). Stempowski et al's (1999) results, along with those of Capaldi et al (1984), clearly showed that discriminability and overshadowing are important factors mediating phrasing cue effects. On the other hand, evidence in both the rat and human literatures suggests that the correspondence between phrasing cues and sequential element organization may also be important determinants of chunking and phrasing effects.…”

mentioning

confidence: 90%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Number, But Not Rhythmicity, of Temporal Cues Determines Phrasing Effects in Rat Serial-Pattern Learning

Fountain

Benson

Wallace

2000

Learning and Motivation

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

supporting

confidence: 56%

mentioning

confidence: 86%

mentioning

confidence: 90%

mentioning

confidence: 90%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Number, But Not Rhythmicity, of Temporal Cues Determines Phrasing Effects in Rat Serial-Pattern Learning

Fountain

Benson

Wallace

2000

Learning and Motivation

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…We call this a "violation element" because it blatantly violates the base within-chunk rule that consistently predicts a correct response in the third position of every other chunk of the pattern. Perhaps not surprisingly, evidence from our lab indicates that rats learn associations so that phrasing cues become discriminative stimuli that cue responses after the phrasing cue (Fountain, Benson, & Wallace, 2000;Stempowski, Carman, & Fountain, 1999;Wallace, Rowan, & Fountain, in press) and rats also learn to use combinations of multiple pattern elements leading up to a violation element to anticipate it and respond properly on the violation trial (Fountain, 2006). In what follows, I will focus on evidence that rats also abstract pattern structure from response sequences they learn to perform.…”

Section: Hierarchical Structure Phrasing Effects and Rule Inductionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Pattern Structure and Rule Induction in Sequential Learning

Fountain¹

2008

CCBR

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When presented with structured sequences to learn, do nonhuman animals abstract and learn relational information-do they induce and learn rules? This paper provides an overview of the current evidence that bears on this question from our recent behavioral and psychobiological research on rat sequential learning. Evidence is presented that rats are sensitive to hierarchical structure in response sequences, that phrasing can bias rats' perception of pattern structure, that rats induce pattern structures from nonadjacent items in "interleaved" patterns, and that rule learning processes are active concurrently with other learning processes. The paper also describes work on the psychobiology of sequential learning that shows that multiple concurrent cognitive processes can be dissociated by MK-801, an NMDA receptor antagonist, and by other drug and lesion manipulations. Taken together, the results indicate that rats use rule learning processes concurrently with associative learning processes in a wide variety of sequential learning problems.Keywords: sequential learning, rule learning, hierarchical organization, phrasing, interleaved patterns Sequential learning involves learning to organize sequences of behavior or to anticipate events that occur in a consistent sequential order. Despite a century of research directed toward characterizing how acquired sequential behavior is organized, many questions remain unanswered regarding the nature of the mechanisms responsible for sequential learning in animal behavior. Perhaps the question that has proven most difficult to answer has been whether or not relational structures that are present in a sequence to be learned influence how and what animals learn. That is to say, when presented with structured sequences, do nonhuman animals encode a memorial representation of their experience that "goes beyond the information given" (Bruner, 1957)? Do they ultimately abstract and learn relational information-do they induce and learn rules? In this paper, I hope to provide an overview of the current evidence that bears on this question from our recent behavioral and psychobiological research on rat sequential learning. First, I will describe some behavioral studies from the 1970s and 1980s that seemed to show that rats indeed learn rules from patterns composed of sequences of food quantities, and then I will describe our recent research with a computational model that questioned the necessity of that conclusion. Next I will describe more recent operant research from our laboratory consistent with the idea that rats are sensitive to the structure of patterns that are hierarchically organized or composed of two interleaved subpatterns. Finally, I will present data from drug and lesion studies that suggest that sequential learning in rats is mediated by multiple concurrent psychological and brain systems, at least one of which appears to be related to rule induction. Rule Induction in Reward MagnitudeSerial Pattern LearningIn the 1970s and 1980s, several studies by Stewart Hulse and co...

show abstract

Concurrent cognitive processes in rat serial pattern learning: II. Discrimination learning, rule learning, chunk length, and multiple-item memories

Muller

Fountain

2016

Jrnl Exper Analysis Behavior

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The current experiment examined the factors that determine acquisition for elements of highly structured serial patterns. Three groups of rats were trained on three patterns with parallel rule-based hierarchical structure, but with 3-, 4-, or 5-element chunks, each with a final violation element. Once rats mastered their patterns, probe patterns were introduced to answer several questions. To assess the extent to which the learned response pattern depended on intrachamber location cues for anticipating different element types, Spatial Shift Probes shifted the starting lever of patterns to locations that positioned chunk boundaries where they had never been experienced during training. To assess the extent to which a phrasing cue is necessary for rats to perform a chunk-boundary response, a Cue Removal Probe tested whether rats would produce a chunk-boundary response in the correct serial position if the phrasing cue was omitted. To assess the extent to which cues from multiple trials leading up to the violation element are required to anticipate the violation element, Multiple-Item Memory Probes required rats to make an unexpected response on one of the elements in the last two chunks of the pattern prior to the violation element. The results indicated that rats used multiple concurrent learning and memory processes to master serial patterns, including discrimination learning, rule learning, encoding of chunk length, and multiple-item memories.

show abstract

Temporal Phrasing and Overshadowing in Rat Serial-Pattern Learning

Cited by 35 publications

References 14 publications

Number, But Not Rhythmicity, of Temporal Cues Determines Phrasing Effects in Rat Serial-Pattern Learning

Number, But Not Rhythmicity, of Temporal Cues Determines Phrasing Effects in Rat Serial-Pattern Learning

Pattern Structure and Rule Induction in Sequential Learning

Concurrent cognitive processes in rat serial pattern learning: II. Discrimination learning, rule learning, chunk length, and multiple-item memories

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About