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. email@example.comShow MeSH
Mentions: Performance on the positive patterning discrimination may be seen in Fig. 6. ANOVA with session block (1–6) and trial type (target reinforced or not) as factors revealed a significant interaction between these two factors, F(5,75) = 16.96, p < .001; the discrimination was significant on blocks 2–6, smallest F(1,15) = 7.02, p = .02. In the last training session the mean response rate to the pseudo-occasion setters was 5.63 rpm and in the interval 5 s after their offset 11.25 rpm; that to the transfer CSs was 10.88 rpm.
Affiliation: School of Psychology, University of Nottingham, University Park, Nottingham, UK. firstname.lastname@example.org