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
Response rates during stages 1 and 2 of Experiment 3a (top panel) and Experiment 3b (bottom panel), 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 six-session blocks, and blocks 3–6 eight-session blocks.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

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

fig0020: Response rates during stages 1 and 2 of Experiment 3a (top panel) and Experiment 3b (bottom panel), 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 six-session blocks, and blocks 3–6 eight-session blocks.

Mentions: Discrimination performance from Experiments 3a and 3b may be seen in the upper and lower panels of Fig. 4 respectively.


US specificity of occasion setting: hierarchical or configural learning?

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

Response rates during stages 1 and 2 of Experiment 3a (top panel) and Experiment 3b (bottom panel), 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 six-session blocks, and blocks 3–6 eight-session blocks.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

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

fig0020: Response rates during stages 1 and 2 of Experiment 3a (top panel) and Experiment 3b (bottom panel), 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 six-session blocks, and blocks 3–6 eight-session blocks.
Mentions: Discrimination performance from Experiments 3a and 3b may be seen in the upper and lower panels of Fig. 4 respectively.

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