Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

neuroscience and behaviour > Classical & instrumental conditioning together, categorisation & concept formation > Flashcards

Classical & instrumental conditioning together, categorisation & concept formation Flashcards

1
Q

in a CC task, what might animals learn?

A

they are responding to food

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

in a IC task, what might animals learn?

A

the stim present predicts food

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

instrumental response

A

rational & goal directed

can adapt as long as goal is reached

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

omission training

holland (1979)

A
  • CC: light –> food association
  • magazine approach: CR prevents food
  • omission - every time rat made magazine response in CS, food cancelled
  • omission training eliminated magazine beh - purely instrumental
  • omission training reduced but did not eliminate rearing beh - mostly classical

measure both IC & CC

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

breland & breland

A
  • money into a slot
  • rather than leave in bank, play with them (rub with paws)
  • instinct interfering with task
  • nature: dip food in water to wash it
  • instinct seemingly triggered by similar action sequence involved in retrieving & depositing coins into bank
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

classically conditioned CSs affect instrumental performance

A
  • avoidance responses rewarded by removing aversive US before they’ve begun
  • buzzer followed by shock BUT if response during buzzer, shock is cancelled
  • buzzer = classically conditioned CS (warning signal predicting shock)
  • one reason for avoidance responding is presence of a signal for fear
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

two process theory

rescorla & solomon (1967)

A
  • motivation nice, CSs predicting nice –> respond more
  • nice, nasty –> less
  • nasty, nasty –> more
  • nasty, nice –> less
  • boosting relevant motivational state boosts responding
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

estes (1948)

general pavlovian - instrumental transfer

A
  • rats trained that tone signals food
  • trained to press lever for food
  • allowed to press lever but stopped food deliveries & occassionally present tone
  • “in every case introduction of the tone was followed by a temporary increase in the rate of responding”
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

rescorla & lolordo (1965)

general pavlovian - instrumental transfer

A
  • dogs trained to jump a barrier to avoid shock on sidman avoidance schedule (only time, no signals for shock)
  • then train separately
  • one stim –> shock (CS+) nasty
  • another –> absence of shock (CS-) nice
  • rate of avoidance responding increased CS+ decreased CS-
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

specific pavlovian-instrumental transfer

specific PIT

A
  • involves 2 rewards
  • a stim predicting 1 reward elevates performance of responding for the same reward (congruent responding) more than responding for the other (incongruent responding)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

PIT & addiction

A
  • reward of drinking or smoking becomes associated with sight of beer & cigarettes (& packaging)
  • seeing a picture of beer bottle can make you want to have a beer (but not cigarette)
  • why cigarette displays are restricted in US & packets no longer have branding
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

discriminative stimulus

A

when the association is instrumental R–>S

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

occasion setter

A

the controlling stimulus when the association is classical S–>S

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

concept formation

A

the induction of concepts that divides items into classes according to their shared properties (categorisation)

key importance is to allow categorisation of novel stim

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

types of concept

A
  • basic level
  • superordinate
  • abstract
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

basic level concept

A

based on perceptual similarity

e.g. bird, flower

17
Q

superordinate concept

A

groups of basic level concepts not based on perceptual similarity

e.g. politiciann, tools

18
Q

abstract concept

A

does not refer to individual entity, but some property, relation or state

e.g. sameness, truth

19
Q

bhatt et al. (1988)

basic level concept formation in animals

A
  • pigeons in chamber with choice of 4 response keys
  • pictures of flowers, cars, ppl & chairs
  • peck diff key for diff category
  • correct responses to new examples
20
Q

theories of basic level concept formation

A
  • exemplar theory
  • prototype theory
21
Q

exemplar theory

basic level concept formation

A
  • learn about every instance independently
  • classify novel explars via similarity to learned instances
22
Q

prototype theory

basic level concept formation

A
  • learn about abstract prototype corresponding to central tendency of training explars
  • classify novel exemplars on basis of stim to prototype you have never seen
23
Q

basic level concept formation & predictions

based on theories

A
  • Exemplar theory predicts classifying a novel item always worse than one you have seen before
  • Prototype theory predicts classifying novel item can be better than one you have seen before - it may be the prototype you stored
24
Q

prototpye effect in pigeons

aydin & pearce (1994)

A
  • ABC & DEF (+ve & -ve prototypes)
  • birds trained on displays created by distorting prototypes e.g. ABF, DBF
  • +ve patterns associated with food, -ve not
  • pecked more at +ve patterns
  • responded more to ABC then +ve patterns
  • responded less to DEF then -ve patterns
25
Q

whittlesea (1987)

A
  • prototype: FURIG
  • list 1,2,3 all differ from prototype by 2 letters
  • list 1 & 2 similar to each other than 3
  • studied using 1
  • humans show results consistent with exemplar theory: list 1 > list 2 > list 3
26
Q

feature theory

A
  • learn about/store component features of each exemplar
  • new stimuli classified on basis of sharing features with stored exemplars
27
Q

superordinate categories members

A

have members that are not neccessarily physically similar to each other, but share a common associate

28
Q

wasserman et al. (1992)

superordinate level concept formation

A
  • Pigeons trained with slides of ppl, chairs, cars & flowers
  • Birds reinforced for making response 1 to ppl or chairs
  • Response 2 cars or flowers
  • Ppl & chairs one category, cars & flowers in another
  • Response 3 to ppl & response 4 to cars
  • Tested chairs & flowers with choice of response 3 & 4
  • Formed superordinate category: treat ppl & chairs as equivalent
29
Q

abstract concept formation

in animals

A
  • same/different
  • match-to-sample technique
  • birds shown sample key (red then given choice of red & green)
  • must peck same colour as sample
  • could master but poor at transferring to diff colours - not learned concept of same

more complex training seemed to produce better results (Wasserman et al., 1995)

30
Q

wasserman et al. (1995)

abstract concept formation

A
  • Pigeons shown complex stim displays & given choice of red & green key
  • Trained on arrays with one set of specific icons
  • Rewarded for pecking on same trials, green on diff trials
  • Tested with diff arrays involving specific icons

neuroscience and behaviour (17 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions