Limits...
US specificity of occasion setting: hierarchical or configural learning?

Bonardi C, Bartle C, Jennings D - Behav. Processes (2012)

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.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: School of Psychology, University of Nottingham, University Park, Nottingham, UK. cmb@psychology.nottingham.ac.uk

Show MeSH
Top panel Response rates during stages 1 and 2 of Experiment 2, during the target CSs alone and when signalled by the occasion setters, the occasion setters alone, the transfer CSs, and the pseudo-occasion setters are presented. Blocks 1–3 represent 6-session blocks, and blocks 3–6 8-session blocks. Bottom panel: Response rates on same and different trials during the target CSs signalled by the pseudo-occasion setters, and the target CSs alone, in the test of Experiment 2. The data are presented in two-session blocks.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3378951&req=5

fig0015: Top panel Response rates during stages 1 and 2 of Experiment 2, during the target CSs alone and when signalled by the occasion setters, the occasion setters alone, the transfer CSs, and the pseudo-occasion setters are presented. Blocks 1–3 represent 6-session blocks, and blocks 3–6 8-session blocks. Bottom panel: Response rates on same and different trials during the target CSs signalled by the pseudo-occasion setters, and the target CSs alone, in the test of Experiment 2. The data are presented in two-session blocks.

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.


US specificity of occasion setting: hierarchical or configural learning?

Bonardi C, Bartle C, Jennings D - Behav. Processes (2012)

Top panel Response rates during stages 1 and 2 of Experiment 2, during the target CSs alone and when signalled by the occasion setters, the occasion setters alone, the transfer CSs, and the pseudo-occasion setters are presented. Blocks 1–3 represent 6-session blocks, and blocks 3–6 8-session blocks. Bottom panel: Response rates on same and different trials during the target CSs signalled by the pseudo-occasion setters, and the target CSs alone, in the test of Experiment 2. The data are presented in two-session blocks.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3378951&req=5

fig0015: Top panel Response rates during stages 1 and 2 of Experiment 2, during the target CSs alone and when signalled by the occasion setters, the occasion setters alone, the transfer CSs, and the pseudo-occasion setters are presented. Blocks 1–3 represent 6-session blocks, and blocks 3–6 8-session blocks. Bottom panel: Response rates on same and different trials during the target CSs signalled by the pseudo-occasion setters, and the target CSs alone, in the test of Experiment 2. The data are presented in two-session blocks.
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.

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.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: School of Psychology, University of Nottingham, University Park, Nottingham, UK. cmb@psychology.nottingham.ac.uk

Show MeSH