Lecture 5 - Mechanisms of CC

Question 1

Main conclusions of Pavlovs theory of temporal contiguity

Answer 1

Main conclusions drawn from 7000 conditioning experiments
CS and US must come into temporal contiguity
Do so repeatedly
Fear conditioning ratio: strong conditioning is a ratio close to 0.

Question 2

Eyeblink conditioning experiment in rabbits

Answer 2

Trial block increase, conditioned response increases
Will level off
Learn to anticipate air puffs

Question 3

Two kinds of conditioning associations in Pavlovian conditioning

Answer 3

Stimulus -> Stimulus

Stimulus -> Response

Question 4

AutoShaping in pigeons

Answer 4

Appetitive. Increase learning trials leads increase pecking rate.
Pairing key light and food.
Peck key light in anticipating food. Not Physical limitations
Change response-outcome contingency

Question 5

What factors determine the rate of learning?

Answer 5

Events associated paired in time so that they occur together
Hume 1700s
Hebb 1949 - Cells that fire together, wire together

Question 6

Outline second-order conditioning and sensory preconditioning

Answer 6

Introduce food after initial stage. Normally, second event needs be something important for learning to show. Do not need awareness or conscious processing. Only later becomes fully formed association

Question 7

Outline Pavlov’s 1927 theory of Temporal Contiguity

Answer 7

Conditioning occur with delays several mins, provided CS continued act until onset US - delay conditioning

CS comes end before onset US
(trace conditioning) much harder form CRs. Trace intervals 2-3 mins

Question 8

Outline temporal contiguity generally improves learning

Answer 8

Something interesting going on, distract you from less salient stimulus (issues simultaneous conditioning)

Question 9

Outline Bernstein’s 1978 experiment on taste aversion learning

Answer 9

Ppts undergoing chemotherapy (lose appetite, result of food being associated with illness), ice-cream 1 hour before session.
Reduced preference for ice-cream on test day if experience chemo

Question 10

Taste aversion on Pavlov’s theory of temporal contiguity

Answer 10

Trace conditioning temporal contiguity between CS and US important
Taste aversion show temporal contiguity not necessary

Question 11

Outline Mackintosh 1976 effects of stimulus intensity: Overshadowing

Answer 11

Lip suppression - animal motivated to drink - licking. Then get stimulus associated foot shock.
Ratio gets closer 0 result higher conditioning after several presentations
Conditioning depend if other cues around same time competing attention.

Question 12

Outline latent inhibition

Answer 12

Exposure animal cue many times over and nothing happens.
Find later group no pre-exposure signal weak.
Past experience and exposures familiarity reduce conditioning cue
CI = previously trained positive association. Informative outcome expect isn’t going to happen
Latent inhibition apply both excitatory and inhibitory.

Question 13

Outline CI

Answer 13

Conditioned inhibitory present the CS is not reinforced

Question 14

Outline the effects of an excitatory with an inhibitor or another excitator

Answer 14

If certain level conditioned responding, then bring in inhibitor, move conditioning opposite direction.
Bring in another excitor we can increase conditioning response

Question 15

Outline hypothetical effects of pairing an inhibitor with a US

Answer 15

Inhibition occur through extra stimulus but also through schedule where relationship between signal and outcome degraded.
CS isn’t predicting US.

Question 16

Outline Rescorla’s experiments: CS-US contingency

Answer 16

CS isn’t predicting US
0 contingency = equally get CR after signal as well as randomly

Negative Conditioning = signal ends up being a sign we are not getting food any time soon

Question 17

Outline Kamin’s blocking experiment

Answer 17

Give animals a predictor
Then give them another cue, it doesn’t tell them anything they didn’t already know. Blocks info.
Second stage introduce light - prior learning blocks association learning of that outcome
Inbuilt control for overshadowing

Question 18

Outline Kamin’s unblocking experiment

Answer 18

Inbuilt control for overshadowing, which in theory may also reduce conditioning to light.
When change the outcome from phase 1 to phase 2. Introduce light into phase 2 light no longer redundant

Question 19

Design and results of a relative validity experiment

Answer 19

Correlated group has better predictor of X
Uncorrelated group X no better predicting than other predictors
Attention maintained to X as its consequences are unknown.
Uncorrelated group better learning of X as if attention maintained due to uncertainty of schedule

Question 20

Functional significance of learning

Answer 20

Restrict learning to events likely indicate causes of important outcomes
Timing: temporal contiguity necessary but not sufficient
Some potential signals don’t stand out from background = overshadowing
Pre-exposure can render stimulus irrelevant = latent inhibition
Significance some events may be qualified by other stimuli e.g. inhibitors, other exictors Some cues redundant = blocking
Some stimuli poorly correlated with outcomes = relative validity