Trial spacing effects in pavlovian conditioning: A role for local context

Barnet, Robert C.; Grahame, Nicholas J.; Miller, Ralph R.

doi:10.3758/bf03198931

Cited by 30 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 16 publications

(23 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Indeed, it is likely that the function, when properly evaluated, has the form of an inverted U and this seems to be the case for both contexts and cues. Thus, there is nothing special about context in terms of spatial learning and exposure/responding functions, rather these results seem to be found under extreme parametric variations that, when properly assessed, show that both context and cues display similar functions (Barnet, Grahame, & Miller, 1993a; 1993b; 1995). …”

Section: Some Misconceptions About Contexts and Environmentsmentioning

confidence: 94%

The functions of contexts in associative learning

Urcelay

Miller

2014

Behavioural Processes

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although contexts play many roles during training and also during testing, over the last four decades theories of learning have predominantly focused on one or the other of two families of functions served by contexts. In this selective review, we summarize recent data concerning these two functions and their interrelationship. The first function is similar to that of discrete cues, and allows contexts to elicit conditioned responses and compete with discrete events for behavioral control. The second function is modulatory, and similar to that of discrete occasion setters in that in this role contexts do not elicit conditioned responses by themselves, but rather modulate instrumental responding or responding to Pavlovian cues. We first present evidence for these two functions, and then suggest that the spacing of trials, amount of training, and contiguity are three determinants of the degree to which the context will play each function. We also conclude that these two functions are not mutually exclusive, and that future research would benefit from identifying the conditions under which their functions dominate behavioral control. We close by discussing some misconceptions concerning contexts.

show abstract

Section: Some Misconceptions About Contexts and Environmentsmentioning

confidence: 94%

The functions of contexts in associative learning

Urcelay

Miller

2014

Behavioural Processes

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There was no significant size ‫ן‬ stimulus interaction (F < 1) nor was there an effect of stimulus pair (F (3,28) = 1.00, P = 0.41.) Experiment 3: Optimizing inter-trial interval, trials per session, and trial initiation requirements Behavioral experiments have shown that learning proceeds more rapidly when inter-trial intervals (ITIs) are long than when they are short (e.g., Barnet et al 1995). Therefore, in Experiment 3, we compared the rate of learning with two different ITIs, 5 sec (the ITI used in most previous touchscreen experiments) and a longer 20 sec.…”

Section: Experiments 2: Optimizing Stimulus Sizementioning

confidence: 99%

The touchscreen cognitive testing method for rodents: How to get the best out of your rat

Bussey¹,

Padain²,

Skillings³

et al. 2008

Learn. Mem.

237

222

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The touchscreen testing method for rodents is a computer-automated behavioral testing method that allows computer graphic stimuli to be presented to rodents and the rodents to respond to the computer screen via a nose-poke directly to the stimulus. The advantages of this method are numerous; however, a systematic study of the parameters that affect learning has not yet been conducted. We therefore sought to optimize stimuli and task parameters in this method. We found that when parameters were optimized, Lister Hooded rats could learn rapidly using this method, solving a discrimination of two-dimensional stimuli to a level of 80% within five to six sessions lasting ∼30 min each.In a final experiment we tested both male and female rats of the albino Sprague-Dawley strain, which are often assumed to have visual abilities far too poor to be useful for studies of visual cognition. The performance of female Sprague-Dawley rats was indistinguishable from that of their male counterparts. Furthermore, performance of male Sprague-Dawley rats was indistinguishable from that of their Lister Hooded counterparts. Finally, Experiment 5 examined the ability of Lister Hooded rats to learn a discrimination between photographic stimuli. Under conditions in which parameters were optimized, rats were remarkably adept at this discrimination. Taken together, these experiments served to optimize the touchscreen method and have demonstrated its usefulness as a high-throughput method for the cognitive testing of rodents.It is now well understood that the use of animal models is an essential component in our quest to understand the brain mechanisms of cognition. In addition, such models are necessary for researchers to be able to test potential therapeutic agents in a direct and expedient manner that is not possible in human subjects. Moreover, we are experiencing a revolution in the sophistication of transgenic and knock-out animal models that creates opportunities for cognitive testing and therapeutic screening that were until recently, unthinkable (Kobayashi and Chen 2005).To achieve successful translation of findings from animal models to humans, the cognitive tasks we use with our rodents should resemble as closely as possible those used with human subjects. Increasingly, human subjects are tested using computerautomated methods. A particularly powerful approach is the "touchscreen" testing method, in which subjects respond directly to stimuli on a computer screen (e.g., Robbins et al. 1994). The advantages of this method are numerous and include facilitated performance due to contiguity between stimuli and responses and the ability to present a battery of different cognitive tests in which parameters such as stimuli, responses, and feedback are consistent across tasks and conditions.To create a cognitive testing method for rodents that matched, as far as possible, the touchscreen testing method for humans, Bussey et al. (1994Bussey et al. ( , 1997a) (see Fig. 1A) developed the touchscreen testing method for rats, a method which has...

show abstract

“…(2) Animals may also learn additional stimuli; contextual parameters may be particularly influential. Barnet et al (1995), in conditioning rats to light or tone with an aversive stimulus, have argued that local contextual stimuli may be more influential for shorter ITI than for longer ITI in modulating conditioned response. Conversely, exposing the animals to the context for longer times during spaced conditioning may favor retention.…”

Section: Massed and Spaced Learningmentioning

confidence: 99%

Massed and Spaced Learning in Honeybees: The Role of CS, US, the Intertrial Interval, and the Test Interval

Manz²,

et al. 2001

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Conditioning the proboscis extension reflex of harnessed honeybees (Apis mellifera) is used to study the effect temporal spacing between successive conditioning trials has on memory. Retention is monitored at two long-term intervals corresponding to early (1 and 2 d after conditioning) and late long-term memory (3 and 4 d). The acquisition level is varied by using different conditioned stimuli (odors, mechanical stimulation, and temperature increase at the antenna), varying strengths of the unconditioned stimulus (sucrose), and various numbers of conditioning trials. How learning trials are spaced is the dominant factor both for acquisition and retention, and although longer intertrial intervals lead to better acquisition and higher retention, the level of acquisition per se does not determine the spacing effect on retention. Rather, spaced conditioning leads to higher memory consolidation both during acquisition and later, between the early and long-term memory phases. These consolidation processes can be selectively inhibited by blocking protein synthesis during acquisition.Learning trials distributed over time lead to better memory than learning trials squeezed into short periods of time. Jost (1897), who elaborated on the original findings by Ebbinghaus (1885), was the first to formulate a theory supposing a contraintuitive, even perplexing interrelation between short-term forgetting and long-term strengthening of memory. In his words, "Given equal associative strength, the older the memory trace at the time of learning repetition, the less forgetting over the long term." The "paradox of spaced practice" (Björk and Allen 1970) was assumed to lie in the fact that longer intervals between learning trials should lead to less memory on a trial-to-trial basis, but multiple units of less memory should finally lead to stronger long-term memory.The conceptual basis for interpreting the spacing effect is the notion of memory dynamics (James 1890; Müller and Pilzecker 1900;Squire 1987). Each learning trial is thought to initiate an intrinsic process of memory formation that leads to final memory by constructive (memory consolidation) and destructive (forgetting) processes. Studies of many species have shown that when training involves multiple trials, the time interval between trials is an important variable in the efficacy of accumulating training effects and the strength of retention (Carew et al. 1972;Fanselow and Tighe 1988;Tully et al. 1994;Spieler and Balota 1996;Kogan et al. 1997;Hermitte et al. 1999;Muzzio et al. 1999;Beck et al. 2000;Wu et al. 2001). The paradigms tested were taste aversion conditioning, fear conditioning, blink conditioning, olfactory aversion training, episodic priming, and learning nonsense syllables. In addition to humans, a wide range of animals was studied (Drosophila, the marine mollusks Aplysia and Hermissenda, the crab Chasmagnathus, rats, and rabbits). The dynamics and interdependence of the constructive and destructive (forgetting) memory processes, and, particularly, their relianc...

show abstract

Trial spacing effects in pavlovian conditioning: A role for local context

Cited by 30 publications

References 16 publications

The functions of contexts in associative learning

The functions of contexts in associative learning

The touchscreen cognitive testing method for rodents: How to get the best out of your rat

Massed and Spaced Learning in Honeybees: The Role of CS, US, the Intertrial Interval, and the Test Interval

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About