Lectures 6 & 7 Flashcards
What key condition is responsible for learning?
Contiguity - events that occur close together in time or space will become readily associated
Findings of Smith & Roll to question the principle of contiguity
Rats can learn he relationship between the flavour of food (CS) and illness (US) even when the two events take place 6 hours apart
Garcia & Keollings findings to question the principle of contiguity
Rats will learn that a light and clicker will signal a footshock but will not learn that they signal to onset of illness.
Saline can be associated with illness but not footshock.
Bob Rescorla’s findings to question the principle of contiguity
Showed that unless there was a clear predictive relationship between the CS and US then even though there is contiguity no learning will occur.
Leon Kamin and successful conditioning
For conditioning to be successful the US has to be suprising and not just contingent on the CS.
Leon Kamin’s experiment
In stage 1 a group of rats (blocking group) learned that a noise CS signalled a mild footshock US.
In stage 2 a light and the noise were presented and training continued.
When the rats were tested for the presence of a CR (freezing) they showed a lower response when the light was presented along than the control group that were always trained with both the noise and light.
Explain Leon Kamin’s results
Learning about the significance of the light was blocked by the previously learned relationship between the noise and the footshock.
In a 3rd group the foot shock was more intense in stage 2 with the light. This group learned recognised the association between the light and shock.
What model was based on Kamin’s blocking data?
Rescorla-Wagner model of associative learning.
Latent inhibition & attention
We are exposed to a lot of stimuli so we must be able to attend one source of information while ignoring others. If some cues are less attended we wont learn them as quickly.
Latent inhibition & experimentation
Experimental group: light presented in stage 1. In stage 2 the light becomes a signal for the delivery of food. Takes longer to learn the association between the signal and food then a group of who are presented with the signal and food straight away.
Three theories of learning based on attention.
Attention is high to novel stimuli but low to familiar stimuli (Wagner)
Attention is high to novel stimuli and signals for important events, but low to irrelevant stimuli (Mackintosh)
Attention is high while learning about a stimulus is ongoing
Wagner & attention
Attention will be high to novel stimuli but low to familiar stimuli.
Accounts for different rates of learning
Mackintosh & attention
Attention is high in novel stimuli and for signals of important events but low to irrelevant stimuli.
Pearce-Hall
Attention is high while learning about a stimulus is ongoing.
There is a distinction between controlled and automatic processing. In controlled processing deliberate attention must be paid, but once the task is learned the processing becomes automatic so attention is lower.
Kaye & Pearce experiments to determine which attention theory is correct
Group none: light signalled no outcome
Group continuous: light always signalled the delivery of food
Group partial: light signalled food on half the trials
Measured orienting response (OR) which is how often the rats looked at the light when it was on (how much attention is being paid) .
OR was high for all groups initially then dropped off for groups none and continuous. OR always remained high for group partial.
Kaye & Pearce experiments to determine which attention theory is correct
Results
Mackintosh says attention should remain high for important events, attention for group continuous decreased so theory not supported.
Wagner says attention should be low to familiar stimuli, but attention remained high for group partial so theory not supported.
Pearce-Hall says attention is high while learning is ongoing. Low attention for groups none and continuous and since animals cant learn the light signal in group partial, attention remains high.
What are 2 ways that we can divide reasoning?
Deductive reasoning
Inductive reasoning
Deductive reasoning
Occurs when the conclusion is necessitated by the premise.
E.g. all ice is cold. This is ice therefore it is cold.
Inductive reasoning
The conclusion is likely from the premise and drawn from presented facts but is not necessarily true.
E.g. this ice is cold therefore you reason that all ice is cold
Why is navigation important for animals?
They will inevitably find themselves in one location and need to move to another to find: food, a mate or return to their home.
It is unrealistic to achieve this through trial and error.
Navigation through dead reckoning/path integration
Navigation by taking into account your own body movement.
E.g. desert ant has to return home quickly after finding food to avoid the heat of the Sahara.
Wehner & Srinivasan, desert ant
showed that ants use dead reckoning to achieve efficient navigation rather than use land marks of follow a scent trail.
They allowed ants to find food at a fixed direction from their nests, the ants were moved 600m and the ants then searched for their nest as if they had not been moved. Suggests ants recalled their movements.
We now know that the ants gain directional sense from the position of the sun in the sky. Ants have an internal pedometer for recording the distance they travelled.
Collet & gerbils
Collet trained gerbils to find food at fixed distances and directions from a landmark. The landmark goal moved from trial to trial and the gerbils were released from different points. Gerbils found food without using dead reckoning.
What is piloting?
The ability to plot a course to a hidden goal using landmarks
Cognitive maps
If animals can learn the position of a goal with respect to a number of landmarks then they can integrate that information to form a map. This should mean that the animals could deduce shortcuts and detour around an obstacle that previously blocks a path.
Tolman & cognitive maps in rats
Rats could only pick a novel route to a goal if the goal had a light above it
Morris & cognitive maps
Trained rats to locate a hidden platform in a circular pool of water, They were always trained to find the platform from the same location and always released from the same point. One experimental group were then released from a new point. They found the new point quickly but started off in the wrong direction. Perhaps they crossed a path they had previously taken
Inductive reasoning
When some animals are faced with a new problem they appear to be able to produce novel behaviour to provide a solution.
Wolfgang Kohler and chimpanzees
showed that chimpanzees were able to use poles and boxes to get closer to fruit that was hung out of reach.
Problem: chimps may have had previous experience of using poles and boxes before.
With a different group of chimps the results were not replicated.
Epstein, Kirshnit, Lanza & Rubin experiments with pigeons and novel behaviour.
Some pigeons were trained to push a box towards a spot on the edge of an arena to gain a food reward. They were then trained to stand on a box that was placed underneath a plasmic banana and peck at the banana to get food. Birds with previous experience completed this task more quickly.
New Caledonian crow and insightful behaviour
One bird (betty) was given a wire to use to retrieve a bucket containing food. After some experience with the wire she would bent it to form a hook.
Gillian & Premack, chimpanzees
Trained chimpanzee, sarah, to use language by pointing to symbols on a board. She learned that one symbol meant “same as” and was given symbolic analogical reasoning tasks.
E.g. two symbols that were identical except for size and could then match triangles
