Convergent results in eyeblink conditioning and contingency learning in humans: Addition of a common cue does not affect feature-negative discriminations

Philipps-Universität Marburg, Germany.
Biological psychology (Impact Factor: 3.4). 10/2010; 85(2):207-12. DOI: 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2010.07.002
Source: PubMed


Previous human discrimination learning experiments with eyeblink conditioning showed that an increase in the similarity between the to-be-discriminated stimuli had no effect on the rate of learning. This result was at variance with data from other experiments which had used different paradigms and different stimulus materials. We therefore compared human discrimination learning in eyeblink conditioning and contingency learning using carefully matched procedures. Participants learned two feature-negative discriminations, A+/AB- and CD+/CDE-. Convergent results were obtained in both paradigms. Adding a common cue did not affect response differentiation, i.e. the A+/AB- discrimination and the CD+/CDE- discriminations were equivalent. These results support the notion that learning in both paradigms is based on the same principles. However, the overall pattern of results cannot be easily accommodated within associative learning theories based on the Rescorla-Wagner Model or on Pearce's Configural Model. The application of these models to current and previous data is discussed.

Download full-text


Available from: Steven Glautier, Oct 14, 2014
  • Source
    • "For example, in a feature-negative experiment one stimulus is reinforced (A+ trials) but a compound stimulus is non-reinforced (AB− trials). The effects of adding a common feature to these trials, to give AC+ and ABC− trials, differs qualitatively for leading associative models (Thorwart et al., 2010). According to the RWM the common-cue manipulation should make the discrimination between reinforced and non-reinforced trials easier whereas according to an alternative associative model the discrimination should become more difficult (Pearce, 1994). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The vast majority of published work in the field of associative learning seeks to test the adequacy of various theoretical accounts of the learning process using average data. Of course, averaging hides important information, but individual departures from the average are usually designated "error" and largely ignored. However, from the perspective of an individual differences approach, this error is the data of interest; and when associative models are applied to individual learning curves the error is substantial. To some extent individual differences can be reasonably understood in terms of parametric variations of the underlying model. Unfortunately, in many cases, the data cannot be accomodated in this way and the applicability of the underlying model can be called into question. Indeed several authors have proposed alternatives to associative models because of the poor fits between data and associative model. In the current paper a novel associative approach to the analysis of individual learning curves is presented. The Memory Environment Cue Array Model (MECAM) is described and applied to two human predictive learning datasets. The MECAM is predicated on the assumption that participants do not parse the trial sequences to which they are exposed into independent episodes as is often assumed when learning curves are modeled. Instead, the MECAM assumes that learning and responding on a trial may also be influenced by the events of the previous trial. Incorporating non-local information the MECAM produced better approximations to individual learning curves than did the Rescorla-Wagner Model (RWM) suggesting that further exploration of the approach is warranted.
    Frontiers in Psychology 12/2013; 4:982. DOI:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00982 · 2.80 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Thorwart and Lachnit (2009) found reliable symmetrical decrements in two generalization tasks: Removing an already trained component from a compound did not result in larger decrements than adding a new one did. In two contingency learning experiments, we investigated first whether time pressure during stimulus processing, as well as the degree of perceptual grouping, was effective in controlling the symmetry of the decrements (Experiment 1); and second, whether the symmetry was affected by the causal versus predictive nature of the relationship between the cue and the outcome (Experiment 2). The experiments generated unexpected results, since both revealed asymmetrical decrements independent of the manipulations introduced. They therefore demonstrate that more research is needed in order to understand the variables influencing stimulus representation in human associative learning.
    Learning & Behavior 11/2010; 38(4):367-73. DOI:10.3758/LB.38.4.367 · 1.89 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Human contingency learning studies were used to compare the predictions of configural and elemental theories. In two experiments, participants were required to learn which stimuli were associated with an increase in core temperature of a fictitious nuclear plant. Experiments investigated the rate at which a simple negative patterning discrimination (A+ B+ ABø) was learned compared to one containing a common but irrelevant element (CD+ CE+ CDEø). When the three elements were from separate modalities (visual, auditory and tactile) the common element enhanced the rate at which the discrimination was learned. When stimuli were drawn from a single modality (visual) the common element disrupted learning. A single elemental model, Harris and Livesey's (2010) attention modulated associative network, was shown to predict both sets of results as the model predicts elements from the same modality attenuate summation. In Experiment 2, the common element was separately paired with a consistent outcome (Cø) and the effect of the common element within the discrimination was found to be removed, again in line with the predictions of Harris and Livesey (2010).
    Learning and Motivation 02/2013; 44(1):46–59. DOI:10.1016/j.lmot.2012.05.001 · 0.96 Impact Factor