Models of Associative Learning

Question 1

What was the dominant idea in the first half of the 20th Century?

Answer 1

That contiguity was the guiding principle of conditioning

Question 2

What 3 ideas influenced the change in the 1970s

Answer 2

Kamin - Blocking
Rescorla - contingency
Wagner - Relative signal validity effect

Question 3

What is Relative Signal Validity?

Answer 3

Wagner 1968 - The CS must be a valid picture of the US judged relative to other present cues.

Question 4

What did Wagner’s first experiment show?

Answer 4

Group 3 got strongest conditioning to the tone because of the intermixed trials L-> nothing

Question 5

What was the issue with Wagner’s first experiment?

Answer 5

Group 2 got twice as many US’s as the others - could be a case that the animal is habituated to the presence of the US. Also the 2nd and 3rd groups get more light exposure.

Question 6

How did Wagner’s second experiment solve issues of the first?

Answer 6

The 2 groups: correlated and uncorrelated got the same number of US and no US trials: Group 1: T1+L-> US and T2+L-> no US
Group 2: half US half no US for both

Question 7

What did Wagner’s second experiment show?

Answer 7

Strongest conditioning to the Light in Group 2 because it is at least as good a predictor as the tones are. It is present in all trial when the US is present. Group 1 don’t learn about the light because it is less valid of a predictor.

Question 8

Who introduced attention to conditioning theory?

Answer 8

Mackintosh - changes in the amount of attention a CS captures affects learning.

Question 9

What phenomenon demonstrates the idea of attention in conditioning

Answer 9

overshadowing - L and N compete for attention

Question 10

what divided Kamin, Mackintosh and Rescorla-Wagner

Answer 10

Mackintosh: changes in how the animal processes the CS

Kamin, Rescorla-Wagner: Changes in how the animal processes the US

Question 11

What was Kamin’s theoretical analysis

Answer 11

conditioning depends on the US being surprising to the animal

Question 12

What does the Rescorla-Wagner model tell us

Answer 12

1972 - strength of the association between CS-US varies on a single dimension

Question 13

(L −∑V): what is L

Answer 13

How strong an association can be supported by that US - Large L -> high survival value

Question 14

what is ∑V

Answer 14

the expectation of the US, based on the total associative strength of all CSs present. animal combines all of them to generate a prediction

Question 15

What was Mackintosh’s contribution to theory?

Answer 15

changes in importance of CS as a signal and changes in intensity of CS effect learning

Question 16

which model formulises the notion of surprise?

Answer 16

the rescorla-wagner model

Question 17

whats the purpose of aB in the model?

Answer 17

They regulate the rate of conditioning, otherwise all conditioning would happen in one trial

Question 18

in wagners second experiment which group had more Light - US pairings?

Answer 18

They each had the same number of pairings (50% of the time)

Question 19

what is the implication of Rescorla- Wagner model on real life?

Answer 19

natural conditioning probably always involves the conditioning of compounded cues - i.e. the context

Question 20

How do we know information value is important?

Answer 20

from Blocking and contingency learning

Question 21

What would make V reach the asymptote faster i.e. for the learning curve to be steeper

Answer 21

if the US was more surprising i.e. if (L-V) was larger.

Question 22

What determines L (the asymptote)

Answer 22

the magnitude of the US

Question 23

What would cause the steepness of the learning curve to decline as it reaches the asymptote?

Answer 23

the US becoming less surprising as CS predicts it, i.e. (L-V) is smaller

Question 24

Calculate the change in associative strength of the light:
Phase 1: N -> US
Phase 2: L+N-> US

Answer 24

∑V= VL + Vn = 0 + 1

△VL=0.2 (1 −1)=0

zero because there is no surprise on the compound trial

Question 25

what is unblocking?

Answer 25

Kamin changed the intensity of the US in the second phase leading to learning about the light. Positive change in associative strength of the light: △VL=0.2 (2 −1)=+0.2 L is 2 now

Question 26

What is the value of L during extinction?

Answer 26

zero.

Question 27

What happens to the change in associative strength of the CS in extinction?

Answer 27

It decreases. Phase 1: The CS is paired with the US until V=1 Phase 2: Extinction L=0 △Vn=0.2 (0 −1)=−0.2 Vn approaches an asymptote of zero

Question 28

How can Pavlov's conditioned inhibition be explained in terms of Rescorla-Wagner's model?

Answer 28

Light-> US L+N-> No US Noise becomes an inhibitor its Vn goes below ZERO VL decreases from 1 ∑V approaches the zero asymptote

Question 29

What does the compound in Pavlov's conditioned inhibition paradigm predict?

Answer 29

Nothing because the light predicts the US just as much as the noise predicts no US, cancels out

Question 30

what happens if an excitor and inhibitor are compounded during extinction?

Answer 30

the inhibitor may protect the excitor from total associative loss. Implication for exposure therapy: clinicians may extinguish excitors in the presence of cues that become inhibitory during exposure. The excitor alone would still elicit fear. Reason for relapse.

Question 31

which would be more effective during extinction: an excitor paired alone to the US, an excitor-inhibitor compound paired to the US, or an excitor-excitor compound paired to the US?

Answer 31

excitor-excitor because: Greater decrease in associative strength when an excitor is extinguished in compound with another excitor. ○ △VL=0.2 (0 −(1+1))=−0.4 where ∑V = 1+1 because the excitors are paired with the US until their V=1 in the initial phase.

Question 32

What is Kremer's overexpectation effect?

Answer 32

Vn=1 and VL=1 for a shock US N+L-> shock they each lose associative strength due to overprediction: △Vn=0.2 (1 −(1+1))=−0.2 once each has a V=0.5 then the reduction stops

Question 33

what happens when a third stimulus is added in the second phase of Kremer's overexpectation effect trial?

Answer 33

it becomes a conditioned inhibitor - △Vx=0.2 (1 −(1+1+0))=−0.2 issue: the description of a conditioned inhibitor as signalling 'no US' is inaccurate here... better description = an inhibitor signals that an upcoming US is not as strong as other cues on the trial predict it to be.

Question 34

what is the biggest message from the overexpectation effect?

Answer 34

CS-US pairings can actually reduce associative strength

Question 35

How does the context lead to blocking in zero contingency?

Answer 35

A=Room X=CS zero contingency when we have AX-US, the US is not surprising because it is already predicted by the context, A

Question 36

What happens when contextual conditioning is reduced in negative contingency training?

Answer 36

little inhibition is acquired by the CS

Question 37

Which theories focus on contextual conditioning?

Answer 37

Rescorla-Wagner and Comparator theories

Question 38

What did comparator theories add to contextual conditioning theory ?

Answer 38

The idea that CS-US can be stronger or weaker than context-US association. The comparison is made AFTER learning has occurred so it determines PERFORMANCE not learning about the CS

Question 39

According to comparator theories what happens if you weaken the context-US association after learning about the CS occurs?

Answer 39

The subject responds more to the CS - shown in Ralph Miller's lab. But no one has shown the converse of strengthening the association to reduce responding to the CS.

Question 40

How does the extinction of inhibition contradict the Rescorla-Wagner model?

Answer 40

Because if a conditioned inhibitor is presented in extinction trials with no US the model says it will REMOVE inhibition: ○ △Vn=0.2 (0 −(−1))=+0.2 but this is not possible since it can't decrease inhibition if it is still being presented with NO US...

Question 41

How does Latent inhibition challenge the Rescorla- Wagner model?

Answer 41

The model does not account for the fact that if a CS is preexposed before conditioning begins - conditioning responding appears relatively slowly

Question 42

How do Rescorla-Wagner and Mackintosh differ in their explanations of blocking

Answer 42

R-W: emphasize the ineffectiveness of the US | Mackintosh: Emphasizes the ineffectiveness of the CS

Question 43

How did Mackintosh's blocking experiments contradict the R-W model?

Answer 43

Group 1: N-shock --------------- LN-SHOCK Group 2: N-shock LN-shock LN-SHOCK R-W predicts that nothing should've happened during Phase 2 and groups should not differ because if N had already been conditioned to the asymptote then there should be no change in the value of V for either CS. BUT group 2 learned less about the light.

Question 44

What occurred in Mackintosh's blocking experiments?

Answer 44

Group 1: N-shock --------------- LN-SHOCK Group 2: N-shock LN-shock LN-SHOCK Group 2: phase 2 interfered with learning because the animals recognised that L was a redundant predictor of shock and they learned to pay less attention to it so in Phase 3, they ignored it

Question 45

Who introduced attention in conditioning

Answer 45

1970s Mackintosh - Attention depends on how well the CS predicts a US relative to other CS

Question 46

How does the Mackintosh model explain latent inhibition?

Answer 46

during preexposure to the CS, the value of a goes down because it is no better than the context at prediction no US. So increases are then small when CS is paired with a US

Question 47

How does the Mackintosh model explain the blocking experiment: Group 1: N-shock --------------- LN-SHOCK Group 2: N-shock LN-shock LN-SHOCK

Answer 47

Group 2: Phase 2: first trial a is higher for noise as it has been established as a good predictor of the shock. a for the noise decreases as trials go on. By Phase 3 learning about the light is slower due to a low a.

Question 48

What would contradict Mackintosh's statement that the value of a can only change after the first conditioning trial?

Answer 48

if we saw complete blocking on the first trial (this would support the R-W Model)

Question 49

How does the Hall-Pearce negative transfer contradict Mackintosh's model?

Answer 49

- Group 1: Tone - shock Tone - SHOCK - Group 2: L - shock Tone - SHOCK Mackintosh says that for group 1, the tone receives a high a in phase 1 so should receive faster learning in phase 2. BUT Hall and Pearce found they had SLOWER learning.

Question 50

what controls the speed of learning in the Rescorla-Wagner model

Answer 50

aB

Question 51

How does L (the asymptote) differ for a compound ?

Answer 51

for a compound, the asymptote is lower (L, the maximum that can be learned) for each CS in the compound

Question 52

For a compound to split uncertainty (L) equally, what needs to happen?

Answer 52

Their salience (a) must be equal so that they split L (uncertainty) equally

Question 53

what happens if a is larger for one CS in a compound than the other?

Answer 53

The CS with a larger a has more salience and takes up more of the uncertainty (L), it reaches a higher associative strength