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 4, to the target CSs alone and when signalled by the occasion setters, the occasion setters alone, the transfer CSs, and the pseudo-occasion setters. Blocks 1–3 represent 6-session blocks, and blocks 3–6 8-session blocks.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

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

fig0030: Response rates during stages 1 and 2 of Experiment 4, to the target CSs alone and when signalled by the occasion setters, the occasion setters alone, the transfer CSs, and the pseudo-occasion setters. Blocks 1–3 represent 6-session blocks, and blocks 3–6 8-session blocks.

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.


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 4, to the target CSs alone and when signalled by the occasion setters, the occasion setters alone, the transfer CSs, and the pseudo-occasion setters. Blocks 1–3 represent 6-session blocks, and blocks 3–6 8-session blocks.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

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

fig0030: Response rates during stages 1 and 2 of Experiment 4, to the target CSs alone and when signalled by the occasion setters, the occasion setters alone, the transfer CSs, and the pseudo-occasion setters. Blocks 1–3 represent 6-session blocks, and blocks 3–6 8-session blocks.
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.

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