The temporal dynamics of a visual discrimination: The role of stimulus comparison and opponent processes.

Honey, Robert Colin

doi:10.1037/0097-7403.22.4.461

Cited by 9 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Likewise, the temporal distribution of responding during the CS differs dramatically across responses, sometimes peaking near the beginning of a CS (e.g., Holland, 1980;Ohyama et aI., 1999), sometimes near the end (e.g., Brown & Hemmes, 1997;Holland, 1980), and sometimes at intermediate times (e.g., Holland, 1980;Levey & Martin, 1968;Smith, 1968). Furthermore, although conventional wisdom and much data support the claim that spaced practice is superior to massed practice, sometimes I effects are not found (e.g., Carrillo, Thompson, Gabrieli, & Disterhoft, 1997), and in some discrimination tasks, massed practice has been found to generate superior performance (e.g., Honey, 1996). Finally, ratio sensitivity may not be universal.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

Trial and intertrial durations in appetitive conditioning in rats

Holland

2000

Animal Learning & Behavior

103

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The effects of trial (T) and intertrial (l) durations were examined in two Pavlovian conditioning experiments with rats, in which a noise conditioned stimulus (CS) was paired with food delivery. In Experiment 1, Twas either 10 or 20 sec, and I ranged from 15 to 960 sec, in separate groups of rats. The acquisition rate and fmallevel of conditioned responding showed ratio invariance: They were better predicted by the 1/ T ratio than by I or T alone. In Experiment 2, the 1/ T ratio was 6.0 in all the groups, and Twas 20, 40, 80, or 160sec. Ratio invariance was not observed: Despite the common I1Tratio, the rate of acquisition, fmallevel of conditioned responding, and the ability of the CS to block conditioning of another stimulus differed among the groups. At the same time, the temporal distribution of conditioned responding within T was similar in all the groups throughout conditioning and extinction and showed superpositioning when normalized across T. Many but not all aspects of the data were consistent with scalar timing theory.Time has long been assumed to be a key variable in associative learning. Not only has temporal contiguity between events been viewed as a critical condition for the occurrence oflearning, but also temporal information has been posited to be an important aspect of the content of learning (Gallistel, 1990;Gibbon & Church, 1990;Savastano & Miller, 1998). Most early research concentrated on single temporal parameters and absolute effects oftime. For example, exploration ofnew conditioning preparations often began with the determination of interstimulus interval (lSI) functions (Holland, 1980;Kamin, 1965;Ross, 1961;Schneiderman & Gormezano, 1964) that related the amount or rate of learning to the time between the onsets of the conditioned stimulus (CS) and the unconditioned stimulus (US). Likewise, trial-spacing effects figured prominently in early theories of interference and memory for events in conditioning episodes (Capaldi, 1967).It is now clear that the effects of one temporal variable can be modulated by other temporal variables. Evidence from a variety of conditioning paradigms suggests that conditioned responding often involves sensitivity to the ratio of two time intervals, the average interval between trials (usually termed the cycle or intertrial duration, I, in this literature) and some within-trial interval, such as the time between CS and US presentation (usually termed This research was supported in part by grants from the National Science Foundation and the National Institute of Mental Health. I thank lohn Chen and lames Wallace for technical assistance in Experiment I and R. Church and W. Meek for helpful comments on an earlier version of this paper. lames Wallace's participation was part of a mentorship program at the North Carolina School of Science and Mathematics. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to P. C. Holland, Department of Psychology: Experimental, Duke University, Box 90086, Durham, NC 27708-0086 (e-mail: pch@duke.edu).the trial duration...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

Trial and intertrial durations in appetitive conditioning in rats

Holland

2000

Animal Learning & Behavior

103

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As noted in the Introduction, SOP also predicts that in a massed extinction procedure, the CS on trial n would prime the US node (through retrieval-generated priming) as well as the CS node (through self-generated priming) into A2. If the US node remained in A2 until trial n þ 1, it would theoretically facilitate extinction learning, because extinction learning (inhibition) occurs when the US node is in A2 while the CS node is in A1 (see Honey, 1996;Rescorla & Durlach, 1987). Conceivably, the lack of a demonstrable effect of massed extinction trials on extinction learning could come about if the CS node and the US node were both partially in the A2 state at the start of trial n þ 1.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Priming and trial spacing in extinction: Effects on extinction performance, spontaneous recovery, and reinstatement in appetitive conditioning

Moody

Sunsay

Bouton

2006

Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous research in this laboratory suggests that priming of the conditional stimulus (CS) in short-term memory may play a role in the trial-spacing effects in appetitive conditioning. For example, a non-reinforced presentation of a CS 60 s before a reinforced trial with the same CS produced slower acquisition than a CS presentation that occurred 240 s before the reinforced trial. The results were consistent with the self-generated priming mechanism proposed by Wagner (e.g., Wagner 1978, 1981). The present experiments extended the earlier work by examining the effects of trial spacing in extinction rather than acquisition. After conditioning with a mixture of intertrial intervals (ITIs), rats received extinction with ITIs of 60 or 240 s, longer or shorter values, or different ways of "chunking" extinction trials in time. Although trial spacing produced effects on extinction performance that were consistent with our previous research on acquisition, there were few long-term differences in spontaneous recovery or in reinstatement. Short ITIs in extinction appear to affect extinction performance more than they affect extinction learning. Mechanisms of trial spacing in conditioning and extinction are discussed.

show abstract

“…However, rare exceptions to the facilitative effects of spaced training on learning do exist. In rats, for instance, massed training results in superior acquisition of "place" learning in both an appetitive plus-maze task (Thompson and Thompson, 1949) and visuospatial discrimination task (Honey, 1996). Such exceptions may potentially be explained within the context of multiple memory systems.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%