Lecture 8 - Theories of Conditioning

Question 1

Outline Pavlov’s Temporal Contiguity Theory

Answer 1

Closeness time form associations

Evidence ice-cream and chemotherapy taste aversion isn’t necessary. Over-ride conditioning

Question 2

Outline Smith and Roll 1967 study that conditioning taste aversion over long delays

Answer 2

Rodents x-rays exposure. Artificially induce sickness.

Animals make associations even over many hours. Reduce preference for drink with saccharin

Question 3

Outline Kamin’s Blocking Experiment

Answer 3

Inspired Rescorla Wagner
In blocking have number successive trials learning and associating a pair, then later add in another component e.g. light. Create compound = no learning light.
Info value as well as closeness in time important determinant learning

Question 4

Who inspired Rescorla Wagner Model

Answer 4

Kamin’s Blocking Experiment

Question 5

Outline Rescorla-Wagner Model

Answer 5

Focus surprisingness US.
Limitation determined how overall outcome could be rated by saliency
Learning gradually increases

Question 6

Evaluation of Rescorla-Wagner Model

Answer 6

Cant measure particular trial, but ONLY series trials

Don’t have currency to measure all different intensities

Question 7

Effect of CS salience on learning

Answer 7

CS intensity relative to background

Depressed acquisition function resembles that seen with a CI

Question 8

Does the Rescorla-Wagner 1972 Model predict extinction?

Answer 8

YES

By trial 2 - smaller change in associative strength

Question 9

Outline conditioning with compound stimuli in Rescorla Wagner Model 1972

Answer 9

US surprisingness now depend on how well this event is predicted by all available stimuli.
Cue competition = looking all available cues influencing associations

Question 10

Outline Conditioned Inhibition

Answer 10

Summing associative strengths and know what it looks like when going through extinction
Unpack what is occurring
Light = maintain excitation
Noise = inhibitor = negative associative strength
Inhibitor is a safety signal keeping original learning in tact preventing it from extinguishing individuals
When tested together appeared extinguished

Question 11

How to test for Conditioned Inhibition

Answer 11

Train excitator and compare outcomes
Transfer Test - take inhibitor and present it with another CS predicting something interest and see if it dampens down behaviour like established inhibitor - summation test

Question 12

How can inhibitors be treated?

Answer 12

Emotional
Foot shock acts inhibitor/safety - approach and make lever presses get to it
Inhibitor positive - treated something nasty

Question 13

What is the take home message from the Rescorla-Wagner 1972 Theory Model

Answer 13

Amount learning any one trial depends how surprising US is

Question 14

Outline Wagner 1981

Answer 14

Modification include CS factors. Moved away saliency CS fixed. CS must also be surprising.
Animals react novel stimuli with orienting response or repeated presentation or declines habituations.
Associability stimulus decline latent inhibition

Question 15

Outline rat orienting towards light CS as evidence Wagner 1981

Answer 15

Light may or may not lead food deliveries.
Reaction light gradually diminish if nothing happens.
Sometimes food = some reinforcement. Orientation light maintains = interests stays up as have to focus to know outcome

Question 16

What is the main difference between UK and USA Rescorla-Wagner Model

Answer 16

Americans focused on outcome

UK focus on information value of signal like Wagner 1981

Question 17

Outline Mackintosh 1975

Answer 17

Animals pay attention/condition stimuli established good predictors significant events
Discrimination learning - acquired distinctiveness of cues
Cues in discrimination learning more effective once chance process As associative strength CS and US increases, associability same CS other outcomes increase
Associative strength poor predictors should decline

Question 18

Who influenced Mackintosh 1975

Answer 18

Lawrence 1950studies on discrimination learning
Acquired distinctiveness of cues
Associability is not fixed factor dependent on intensity.

Question 19

Outline Mackintosh-Turner Design Test Phase 1

Answer 19

Already have established predictor shock. Later have compound presentation where 2 stimuli leads shock. But type shock hanged. Would expect some unblocking and some learn. Not redundant

Question 20

Outline Mackintosh-Turner Design Test Phase 2

Answer 20

Added stage light but shock level remained unchanged unlike phase 1
Associability poor predictors declined
Introducing light as poor predictor as nothing has changed
Suppression ratio = LESS LEARNING

Question 21

Conclusions from Mackintosh-Turner Design Test

Answer 21

Good predictor yield better learning in future.
Bad predictor = decline in learning
BUT orientation maintained when not good predictor as stimuli partial reinforcer. Inconsistent schedule maintains attention

Question 22

Outline Pearce-Hall 1980

Answer 22

Opposes Mackintosh
Animals not waste time processing events with known consequences
Stimuli established consequences, automatic mode and cannot enter new associations
Stimuli unknown consequences processed controlled mode and enter new associations
When we are not sure = pay attention

Question 23

Outline Hall and Pearce experimental design 2

Answer 23

Set stimulus as predictor. Compared novel stimulus see if its better or worse being later predictor.
Tone followed by shock. Phase 2: same tone followed larger shock. Compared this to light followed by shock, then a tone followed by larger shock= different predictor

Question 24

Why did they use a different predictor in Hall and Pearce experimental design 2?

Answer 24

If stimulus set up as predictor as Mackintosh thinks, then conditioning be stronger, suppression ratios be lower with group as tone as predictor

Question 25

Outline the results of Hall and Pearce experimental design 2

Answer 25

Group who did not have tone set up as predictor earlier (2) better conditioning and predictor.
Opposes Mackintosh

Question 26

Evaluation of Hall and Pearce experimental design 2

Answer 26

Assumes they successfully set up tone as a predictor in stage 1
Phase 1 training wasn’t very effect .45.

Question 27

Counter-argument for Evaluation of Hall and Pearce experimental design 2

Answer 27

Hall and Pearce 1982 reported similar experiment in which phase 1 training more effective