Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

PSYC 453 MT 1 > Lecture 1 > Flashcards

Lecture 1 Flashcards

1
Q

Definition: Homeostasis

A

Maintenance of a stable state. Defines “setpoint” to maintain stable physiological state.

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

Homeostasis requires (3) brain mechanisms

A
  1. Setpoint: a level or narrow range
  2. Error Detector: measure actual physiological situation. Sees if deficit exists. initiates correction responses
  3. Error Correction mechanism: motivated drive to activate/inhibit appropriate responses.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Error correction is always _____

A

negative feedback that corrects deficit, bringing physiological reality back to setpoint.

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

Homeostasis important task:

A

To avoid error states

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

Concept of homeostasis requires both:

A

setpoints and error detectors

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Implications of homeostatic emphasis

& the downsides:

A
  • motivation understood when homeostatic deficit triggers and the receptors are found.
  • Greatly benefited the id of deficit receptors & their signals.

-diverted attn from other Q’s. ie: how brain systems mediate motivational functions beyond deficit detection.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

How can there be Homeostasis-like outcomes?

What are the two main types:

A

If a mechanism maintains homeostasis without a setpoint and error detector, it is not homeostatic.

  1. Anticipatory mechanisms
  2. “settling points”
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Hom-like mech 1. Anticipatory Motivation

A
  • Pre-emptive mechanism prior to depletion

- no physiological deficit, thus no physiological

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Hom-like mech 1. Anticipatory Motivation

A
  • Pre-emptive mechanism prior to depletion
  • no physiological deficit, thus no physiological
  • may still activate homeostatic brain systems
  • may be triggered by predictice cues or actual physiological depletion.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Hom-like mech 2. Settling points

A
  • Balance of opposing forces, but without any setpoint or error detection
  • Basis of settling point theory of hunger
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Settling point theory of hunger

A

no body weight setpoint exists (bolles)

  • hunger cannot be triggered by error deviation
  • Instead, body weight has moderately stable settling point.
  • Determined not only by internal appetite, satiety mechanisms AND external avail, palatability.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Allostasis

A
  • refers to physiological regulation of changed states
  • often (+)ve feedback response
  • explains regulations and levels changing over time, but otherwise behaving homeostatically.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

(+)ve feedback responses

A

Occurs when initial responses to a change themselves contribute to larger responses later to subsequent changes.

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

Allostasis AKA

A

fluctuating homeostasis; the state simply chases a moving settling point

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

Drive is explained as

A
  • intervening variable
  • helps explain urges/needs for behaviour
  • allows for us to see manifestation of motivation (measurable).
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Why is motivation a difficult explanatory concept?

A
  1. It cannot be directly observed as physical event.

2. motivational explanation is a circular concept

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Escaping circularity explanations of motivation

A
  • by using drive to make new predictions and test them to determine which predictor is the better indicator of the behaviour
  • feedback from certain behavioural expressions of motivation may alter how one expresses a motivation (effector feedback)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Intervening variable activating response

A

most minimal concept of motivation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Teitelbaum’s flexible goals

A
  • real motivation must be able to motivate flexible instrumental behaviour
  • Organism must learn new operant response to gain a goal to prove they were motivated
  • The appetitive phase is essential: motivation only found in app phase
  • Must be showing goal directiveness
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Craig’s sequential phases

A

Generally stereotypical (species specific)

  1. Appetitive phase: flexible approach behaviour organism emits before it is found
  2. Consumatory phase: elicited by goal stimulus. It terminates appetitive phase, allows actual transaction w/ sought-after goal.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Epstein’s Additional criteria (three):

A

distinguishing truly motivated behaviour:

  1. Flexible goal directedness
  2. Goal expectation
  3. Affect
22
Q

Ep’s 1. Flexible goal directedness

A
  • demonstrates behaviourally target was true goal

- Rules out: simple (forms of learning & drive activation) of behaviour

23
Q

Ep’s 2. Goal expectation

A

part of motivation that causes behaviour in human everyday life.

  • has declarative and cognitive forms
  • might incl forms of associative learning that anticipates the goal
  • occurrence of incentive contrast effect can be taken as evidence goal expectation exists
24
Q

incentive contrast

A

the crespi effect: expects a better reward than before

  • nonverbal organisms, must be inferred…
  • verbal organisms, must be discussed…
25
Q

Ep’s 3. Affect

A

Meaningfulness. something that will have some affect.

26
Q

Epstein suggested that:

A

Real motivation always accompanied by affective rxn’s to goal itself.

  • motivation directed towards hedonically laden goals.
  • if goal is hedonic, should elicit affective rxn
27
Q

Opponent process theory define

A

all hedonic stimuli activate both their own direct hedonic rxn in brain AND opponent process of opposing hedonic valence.
-stim must be strong & prolonged.

28
Q

OPT dynamics

A

underlying assumption: neurophysiological mechanisms involved in motivation tuned to achieve stability (homeostasis).

  • a-process: initial response to stim, initiates b
  • b-process: generates opposite hedonic response
29
Q

OPT and addiction (part 1)

A

a-process: brain reward circuits triggered by drug. produces A-state (+ve affective rxn)

b-process: physiological process to counteract a. would be unpleasant if experienced by itself (B-state)

30
Q

OPT and addiction (part 2): tolerance

A

Tolerance result of reduced A-state. manifested as reduced heroin pleasure

-Only b-process (increases) changes with repeated exposure.

31
Q

OPT (part 3): failure of tolerance & Koob’s downregulation

A
  • classical condi may activate O.P. without needing a-process.
  • specific neural mechanisms mediating b-process by downregulation in mesolimbic DA
32
Q

OPT (part 4): Limitations

A
  • b-process effects not always due to every affective a-process that happens
  • opponent b-process not always chief motivational factor in the behav
33
Q

Hydraulic Drive Model of Motivation (Lorenz) part 1

A

internal causes of motivational drive (hormones, etc) that fill the reservoir and replenishing fluid from that motivation. External motivation stimuli act to open an outflow valve, which releases drive via behavioural manifestations.

34
Q

Hydraulic Drive Model of Motivation (Lorenz) part 2

A

Int drive strength and ext stim strength interact.

  • low drive~higher ext strength needed
  • high drive~less ext stim required
  • high enough drive, no ext stim needed. called a vacuum rxn.
35
Q

vacuum rxn

A

Lorenz hydraulic model of motivation:

when drive is high enough and no external stimulus is needed at all, outflow bursts open.

36
Q

Limitations of hydraulic drive model of motivation

A
  • most motivated behaviours do not overflow.
  • behavioural expressions of motivation often do not reduce motivation. Instead, they prime/enhance subsequent intensity. Priming highly observed studies. better explained by incentive motivation concepts.
37
Q

usefulness of hydraulic model

A

-behav neuro community rejected it: few details on neural mechanisms.

uses

  • temporal buildup in motivation
  • effects of preventing behavioural expression
  • interaction between internal motivational factors & external stimuli in controlling motivated behaviour
38
Q

Drive Reduction & Reward

A

Belief that reward subsides drive

-it is wrong. Not an explanation of why we seek out rewarding things.

39
Q

Drive reduction is not

A

NOT a chief mechanism of reward.

  • hedonics are more of chief mechanism expl of reward.
  • inner state and outer is the thing that matters to be chief mech of reward.
40
Q

Evidence against Drive Reduction & Reward

A

-reducing physiological drive via intervening variable does not stop eating.

  • brain stimulation reward studies
  • nearly all predicted hy’s in drive reduction were wrong.
41
Q

Brain stim reward studies

A

provide most important evidence against drive reduction

-reward was its own motivational phenomenon.

42
Q

central to most incentive motivation theories

A

concept of hedonic rewards, which can cause sudden and real changes in behaviour
-pure sensory rewards were behaviourally reinforcing even when they did not reduce drives.

43
Q

Hedonic concepts etymology:

A
  1. Pfaffman: neural encoding of hedonistic sensations must be rewarding and motivating all by itself.
    - without any need of drive reduction
  2. Stellar: important origin with B-B-T theory of incentive motivation by placing constraints on incentive motivation so it supercedes reward.
44
Q

Bolles-Bindra-Toates Theory of incentive motivation proposition (Bolles)

A

proposed organisms were motivated by incentive expectancies and NOT by drives or drive reduction.
-learned expectations of a hedonic reward
(S-S*associations)

45
Q

S-S* associations (Bolles)

A

(S)=predictive neutral stimulus
becomes associated with:
(S)=hedonic reward that followed
-S carried motivational value before learning, and S did not

Learning resulted in predictive expectancy of reward (ex: taste aversion).

46
Q

B-B-T’s S-S* expectancy (Bindra)

A

unclear why S-S* expectancy would cause motivation. how we feel about certain environmental stim that promote our motivation for those pleasurable rewards.

  • bindra suggested CS for reward actually evokes same incentive motivational state normally caused by reward itself
  • S becomes S*: stimulus takes on rewarding value.
47
Q

Criticisms of Bindra

A

if CS simply became permanent incentives due to learning, constant responses to them as incentives should be made, regardless of the organism’s state.

  • theory not encapsulating motivation, but contributing to it.
  • clearly physiological drive state is important to motivation, even if drive =/= to it.
48
Q

B-B-T theory (toates)

A

physiological depletion states could enhance incentive value of their goal stimuli. altering hedonic impact of certain stimuli.

  • physiological depletion states did not DRIVE motivated behaviour directly. Instead, they magnify S* or CS’s
  • results in 3-way interaction b/w:
    1. physiological deficit
    2. CS/S stimulus
    3. learned association w/ UCS/S*

What we want or desire at a given time dependent on levels of physiological depletion states.

49
Q

Alliesthesia

A
  • the change of sensation (short term aspect)
  • pleasure of hedonic incentives can be modulated by relevant physiological drive states

-conditioned motivation could follow Bindra-type incentive rules, but also modulated flexibly by internal depletion states (int & ext).

50
Q

Liking vs. Wanting

A

Bindra-Toates incentive concept suggests learned pavlovian incentive stimuli become both “liked” and “wanted” due to reward learning

Berridge & robinson suggest that “liking” and “wanting” split in two components of reward due to different brain mechs. Resulting in Incentive Salience Model.

PSYC 453 MT 1 (3 decks)

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