Classical Conditoning

Question 1

Pavlov experiment

Answer 1

CS-US

CR-UR

Question 2

Pavlov theory of temporal contiguity

Answer 2

Main conclusions drawn from over 7000 conditioning experiments –

(1) The CS and US must come into temporal contiguity
(2) They must do so repeatedly

Question 3

Eyeblink conditioning experiment in rabbits

Answer 3

Conditioned responses increase with more trial blocks

Question 4

Associations learned in classical conditioning

Answer 4

Bell (CS) = Food (US)

Salivate (CR) Salivate (UR)

Question 5

Auto shaping in pigeons

Answer 5

Peck rate increases along the 20 trial blocks

Steadily

Question 6

What factors determine the rate of learning?

Answer 6

The events to be associated need to be paired in time so that they occur together
Two ideas will be associated if they occur closely together in time, if we eat the apple it might taste crisp and sweet.. (Hume, 1700s)
‘Cells that fire together, wire together’ (Hebb, 1949)

Question 7

Second order conditioning and sensory pre conditioning

Answer 7

Second order conditioning
Phase 1 - L-Food
Phase 2- T-L
Test- T?

Sensory preconditioning
Phase 1 T-L
Phase 2 L-Food
Test T?

Question 8

Pavlov 1927

Theory of temporal contiguity

Answer 8

Pavlov reported that conditioning could occur with delays of several minutes, provided the CS continued to act until the onset of the US (‘delay conditioning’)
But if the CS comes to an end some time before the onset of the US (‘trace conditioning’), it is much harder to form CRs
Pavlov showed learning with trace intervals up to 2-3 min

Question 9

Temporal contiguity…

Answer 9

Generally improves learning

Question 10

Delay conditioning

Answer 10

CS before US

Question 11

Trace conditioning

Answer 11

CS and then US much after

Question 12

Simultaneous conditioning

Answer 12

At the same time

Question 13

Backward conditioning

Answer 13

US before CS

Question 14

Different ways to present CS and US in time

Answer 14

Delay conditioning
Trace conditioning
Simultaneous conditing
Backward conditioning

Question 15

Bernstein experiment on taste aversion in learning

Answer 15

Exception to the contiguity rule
Something special about taste CS and illness US
Mapletoff – novel ice cream of maple and walnut (better control ‘Hawaiian’)
Participants children undergoing chemotherapy, ice cream 1 hour before session in Bernstein’s 1978 experiment

Question 16

Pavlov theory of temporal contiguity

Answer 16

Studies of trace conditioning show that temporal contiguity between CS and US is generally important
But studies of taste aversion show that temporal contiguity is not necessary for successful associative learning
Does the role of temporal contiguity depend on the importance of other factors too?

Question 17

Effects of stimulus intensity

Overshadowing

Answer 17

Overshadowing or cue competition effect on conditioned suppression in rats (Mackintosh, 1976)

Question 18

Latent inhibition

LI

Answer 18

Stimulus pre-exposure (in phase 1) reduces later learning (in phase 2) when the stimulus is now relevant
LI can apply to both excitatory and inhibitory stimuli, i.e. LI of a potential inhibitor

Question 19

Conditioned inhibition

Inhibitory learning

Answer 19

Phase 1: CS -> US
Phase 2: [CI + CS] -> no US

When the conditioned inhibitor (CI) is present, the CS is not reinforced

Question 20

Effects of an exciter with an inhibition or another exciter

Answer 20

One exciter - conditioned responding is normal

One exciter + one inhibitory - less than normal

Two excitors- more conditioned responding

Question 21

Functional significance

Answer 21

It makes sense to restrict learning to events that are likely to indicate the causes of important outcomes
Timing of events: temporal contiguity is generally necessary but not sufficient
Some potential signals don’t stand out from the background (overshadowing)
Pre-exposure can render stimuli ‘irrelevant’ (latent inhibition)
Significance of some events may be qualified by other stimuli (inhibitors, other excitors)
Some cues are redundant (blocking)
Some stimuli are poorly correlated with outcomes (relative validity)

Question 22

Design and results of a relative validity experiment

Answer 22

The ‘correlated’ group has a better predictor (so X is redundant), whereas for the ‘uncorrelated’ group stimulus X is no worse than A or B at predicting US or no US, hence attention is maintained to X as its consequences are unknown and some conditioning to X is demonstrated (because half the time the US follows)..

Question 23

Kamins unblocking experiment

Design and results

Answer 23

Inbuilt control for overshadowing, which in theory may also reduce conditioning to the light

Question 24

Kamins blocking experiments

Answer 24

Inbuilt control for overshadowing, which in theory may also reduce conditioning to the light

Question 25

Rascorlas experiments

CS-US contingency

Answer 25

Positive contingency
Zero contingency
Negative contingency

Question 26

Rascorlas experiments

Answer 26

CS-US contingency