US specificity of occasion setting: hierarchical or configural learning?
Bottom Line: No effect was observed when two visual "pseudo-occasion setters", C and D (paired with sucrose and oil in a trace relation to the US:C…→suc, D…→oil), were substituted for the occasion setters A and B (C…x, D…x, C…y, D…y; Experiments 2, 3b and 4).These results could not be explained in terms of Pavlovian summation: responding to combinations of Pavlovian CSs paired with same or different outcomes was either the same, or lower when both stimuli had been paired with the same outcome (Experiment 4).Implications of these results for theories of occasion setting and configural learning are discussed.
Affiliation: School of Psychology, University of Nottingham, University Park, Nottingham, UK. firstname.lastname@example.orgShow MeSH
Mentions: ANOVA with session block (1–6) and trial type (target CS reinforced or nonreinforced) as factors revealed main effects of block and of trial type, F(5,75) = 4.17, p = .002 and F(1,15) = 13.18, p = .003; the interaction was not significant, F(5,75) = 1.53, p = .19; this confirmed that the animals had learned the discrimination (Fig. 3, top panel). There was little response to the occasion setter alone during these sessions, but the animals responded at a high rate to the transfer CSs, w and z, and slightly less to the pseudo-occasion setters. In the final training session responding to w and z was 8.91 rpm, to C and D 4.75 rpm, and in the trace interval 5 s after their offset (the interval during which the target CS would be presented at test) 10.80 rpm.
Affiliation: School of Psychology, University of Nottingham, University Park, Nottingham, UK. email@example.com