Why don’t guiding cues always guide in behavior chains?

Abstract

This research focused on the changes in stimulus control that influence an animal's ability to master a behavioral skill. We assessed stimulus control by (a) predictive environmental cues (panel lights) and (b) practice cues resulting from the subject's own behavior, as rats learned to complete a leftright lever-press sequence. Following a demonstration of overshadowing by Reid, Nill, and Getz (Behavioural Processes 84: 511-515, 2010), in which stimulus control by the panel lights overshadowed control by practice cues, four additional experiments replicated and assessed this overshadowing effect. In Experiment 1, we discovered a powerful asymmetry: Rats failed to adapt to a lights → reversed-lights transition, but adapted immediately to a reversed-lights → lights transition. Experiment 2 was designed to measure the interactions between these stimulus conditions and practice cues. In Experiment 3, we measured the effect of these stimulus conditions on acquisition rates. Finally, in Experiment 4 an ABA design was used to assess the effects of prior exposure to condition A on B → A transitions, and we found that prior exposure generally reversed the effects observed in B → A transitions presented first or in isolation. We discuss feature-positive bias and spatial S-R compatibility as potential explanations of the observed insensitivity to cues that should be, at face value, highly predictive of food during the acquisition of a behavioral skill. Perfectly predictive cues in behavior chains do not always guide behavior.

Assessment of progressively delayed prompts on guided skill learning in rats

“…BPrompted^and BAfter^represent trials terminating after the delay timer timed out. Error bars represent SEM difference in follow-lights and reversed-lights conditions has been demonstrated before (e.g., Reid, DeMarco, et al, 2013;Reid, Rapport, et al, 2013) and may have resulted from the extended training required in the reversed-lights condition to fulfill our accuracy/stability criteria. The average number of sessions required to meet these criteria for the follow-lights condition (M = 22.7, SD = 3.23) was significantly less than the number required for the reversed-lights condition (M = 26.3, SD = 2.31), t(16) = 2.71, p = .007.…”

“…The purpose of this experiment was to explore the controlling factors that allow a prompted behavior chain to become autonomous in Touchette's (1971) delayed prompting procedure, using a recently developed methodology for studying guided skill learning in rats (e.g., Reid et al 2010;Reid, DeMarco, et al, 2013;Reid, Rapport, et al, 2013). Using a 2 (follow lights vs. reversed lights) × 2 (delayed prompt vs. no prompt) between-group factorial design, we first asked how the effectiveness of the stimulus prompts would influence the Fig.…”

“…Of particular relevance for this study, the experiments in Reid, Rapport, and Le (2013) focused on the question of why some guiding cues are substantially more effective at controlling response sequences than others, even though the information provided by the guiding cues should, at face value, be the same. Why would animals be insensitive to highly predictive cues?…”

“…Experiment 3 of Reid, Rapport, et al (2013) compared the effectiveness of four patterns of guiding cues during acquisition of the L-R lever-press sequence in rats: the follow-lights condition, the reversed-lights condition, and two types of nocue conditions: one with both panel lamps illuminated and one with both lamps extinguished. They found that acquisition was substantially faster in the follow-lights condition than in the reversed-lights condition.…”

“…Researchers continue to debate, however, what causes this difference in effectiveness. Reid, Rapport, et al (2013) compared both stimulus procedures in AB and ABA designs to test different explanations of why one guiding cue would be so much more effective than a similar guiding cue: sign tracking, feature-positive discrimination bias, spatial S-R compatibility and the Simon effect. They concluded that none of these explanations adequately explained existing data involving transfer of stimulus control, especially in ABA designs in which path dependence has a prominent effect.…”