Comparing excitatory backward and forward conditioning

Three Pavlovian lick suppression studies with rats were conducted to compare the role of the conditioning context in excitatory backward and forward conditioning. The experiments explored the possibility that excitatory backward conditioning, but not forward conditioning, is mediated by the context. That is, in excitatory backward conditioning, the conditioning context may function as an excitatory mediator, which supports second-order conditioning of the target cue. This possibility contrasts with traditional accounts, which suggests that common processes underlie excitatory backward and forward conditioning. Experiment 1 found that conditioned responding following backward conditioning was attenuated as a result of posttraining extinction of the training context, but the same manipulation elevated responding after forward conditioning. Experiments 2 and 3 found that posttraining and pretraining associative inflation of the context (presenting unsignalled USs) increased conditioned responding to the target of a backward conditioning procedure but either had no effect or reduced responding to the target of a forward conditioning procedure. Thus, excitatory backward and forward conditioning appear to differ in their dependence on the status of the conditioning context.     

Time-dependent changes in conditioned suppression

Time-dependent changes in a response following aversive conditioning were investigated using a conditioned suppression procedure in a within-subjects design. Four groups of pigeons received Pavlovian conditioning “off the baseline”, immediately followed by an operant task. During the Pavlovian phase, two groups received a forward pairing of a tone with shock, one group received a backward pairing, and one group received a truly random pairing. One of the forward pairing groups also received a delay between the Pavlovian and operant phases. For all groups, key pecking was reinforced on a variable-interval schedule during the operant phase. Testing sessions were identical to training sessions, except that the tone used during Pavlovian conditioning was presented either 0, 15, 30, 45, of 60 minutes after the operant phase began. Testing sessions in which the Pavlovian phase was omitted were also included. The results showed suppression to change as a function of the retention interval, with maximum suppression occurring at intermediate intervals. This U-shaped function was obtained for 11 of the 12 pigeons in the forward-pairing groups and for three of the five in the truly random group. Pigeons in the background pairing group did not show changes in suppression as a function of the retention interval.     

Spontaneous recovery from forward and backward blocking

This article demonstrates and analyzes spontaneous recovery of stimulus control following both forward and backward blocking in a conditioned suppression preparation with rats. Experiment 1 found, in first-order conditioning, robust forward blocking and an attenuation of it following a retention interval. Experiment 2 showed, in sensory preconditioning, recovery of responding following both forward and backward blocking. Also, the results of this experiment indicated that response recovery to the blocked stimulus cannot be explained by an impaired status of the blocking stimulus after a retention interval. Experiment 3, also in sensory preconditioning, suggested that spontaneous recovery following both forward and backward blocking in Experiment 2 was due to impaired associative activation of the blocking stimulus' representation during testing with the blocked stimulus. Although no contemporary model of associative learning can explain these results, a modification of R. R. Miller and L. D. Matzel's (1988) comparator hypothesis is proposed to do so.     

Sign-tracking behavior in aversive conditioning: Its acquisition via a Pavlovian mechanism and its suppression by operant contingencies

When rats are presented with Pavlovian backward pairings in which shock is the unconditioned stimulus (US) and an elevated platform the conditioned stimulus (CS), they show a strong tendency to approach the platform. Attempts were made at evaluating the nature of the associative mechanisms responsible for the acwuisition and maintenance of the approach behavior. In Experiment 1, following a baseline period when platform presentations were given in the absence of shocks, first (training I), approach to the platform was prevented and subjects were exposed to either backward, forward, or random presentations of shock and platform: this procedure attempted to minimize the effects of response learning on the acquisition of approach behavior. Then (training II), all subjects received backward shock-platform pairings and had access to the platform. Approach to the platform was stronger in animals previously exposed to backward pairings than in the animals of the other two groups. Also, animals preexposed to forward platform-shock pairings showed suppression of approach behavior on the first trial of training II relative to their performance on the last trial of baseline. These data suggest that a stimulus-reinforcer learning mechanism alone is sufficent for the acquisition of approach. Experiments 2a and 2b evaluated the effects of “punishing” operant contingencies on Pavlovian-produced approach behavior. The results showed that approach can be eliminated, but only after repeated exposure to an operant contingency which consisted of the immediate closure of the platform upon approach responding. These data suggest that approach behavior produced by Pavlovian contingencies can be modified by operant contingencies. Taken together, these data provide additional support for a sign-tracking notion in aversive conditioning.     

Backward conditioning as an extinction procedure

In two conditioned suppression experiments, rats received Pavlovian forward defense conditioning in which tonal conditioned stimuli (CSs) terminated with the onset of scrambled grid shock unconditioned stimuli (USs). After this experience, the rats then received a Pavlovian backward conditioning procedure in which the same USs now terminated with the onset of the same CSs. Although the two experiments differed greatly in terms of CS and US parameters, number of forward and backward pairings, and in terms of the general techniques used to establish and measure the Pavlovian conditioned response (CR), the results of both experiments agreed in showing that backward conditioning can indeed weaken a CR based on forward pairings. The results also show that, under some conditions, the backward procedure can be at least as effective in weakening an established CR as the traditional CS-alone extinction procedure; but, under other conditions, the backward procedure is less effective and leads to more spontaneous recovery than the CS-alone procedure.     

Asymmetries in cue competition in forward and backward blocking designs: Further evidence for causal model theory

A hallmark feature of elemental associative learning theories is that multiple cues compete for associative strength when presented with an outcome. Cue competition effects have been observed in humans, both in forward and in backward blocking procedures (e.g., Shanks, 1985) and are often interpreted as evidence for an associative account of human causal learning (e.g., Shanks & Dickinson, 1987). Waldmann and Holyoak (1992), however, demonstrated that cue competition only occurs in predictive, and not diagnostic, learning paradigms. While unexplainable from an associative perspective, this asymmetry readily follows from structural considerations of causal model theory. In this paper, we show that causal models determine the extent of cue competition not only in forward but also in backward blocking designs. Implications for associative and inferential accounts of causal learning are discussed.     

One-trial conditioned suppression: effects of instructions on extinction

Two experimental groups of undergraduate volunteers received a single Pavlovian conditioning trial consisting of a paired presentation of a tone conditioned stimulus (CS) and a shock unconditioned stimulus (UCS). Control groups received either the CS alone or the UCS alone. Subjects from one experimental group were subsequently instructed that they would not receive further shocks, while the other experimental group received no such instructions. The CS alone was then presented once to all four groups while subjects were engaged in a button-pressing task maintained by slide reinforcement. During the latter phase, rate of button-pressing was measured. Classically conditioned suppression of button-pressing was obtained in the noninstructed experimental group but not in the instructed group. The results demonstrate that suppression can be a sensitive index of Pavlovian conditioning in humans but question the use of conditioned suppression as an adequate experimental analog of clinically observed anxiety-motivated behavior.     

One-trial backward excitatory fear conditioning transfers across contexts.

One path to human phobia may be one-trial backward fear conditioning. Human phobias transfer readily across contexts. However, animal studies of one-trial backward fear conditioning have yet to demonstrate such transfer. The present study sought to do so. It used a lick-suppression procedure with 84 naive male albino rats. Two conditioning contexts, designated O and V, were crossed factorially with two test contexts, O and V. Within each cell of the factorial design, rats received in the conditioning context either a single 12 sec tone backward paired with a single 4 sec 1 mA shock or the same tone explicitly unpaired with shock. Fear of context and fear of tone were subsequently assessed in terms of the suppression of licking that they evoked. Test results suggested that (1) the rats discriminated between contexts O and V, and (2) despite such discrimination, one-trial backward fear conditioning transferred across the two contexts. The results enhance the plausibility of one-trial backward fear conditioning as a source of human phobia.     

Pavlovian conditioning in human skilled motor behavior

The role of Pavlovian contingencies in human skilled motor behavior was investigated in three experiments by means of a new conditioning preparation. In Experiment 1 the present method was shown to be appropriate for the study of associative learning. Subjects who experienced a standard delay configuration performed significantly more conditioned responses than subjects who received either backward conditioning or random pairings. Stimulus generalization was shown to be slight in two additional groups. Subsequent experiments examined conditioning with multiple conditioned stimuli (CSs). In particular, in Experiment 2 some reciprocal overshadowing was demonstrated when two conditional stimuli (tone and vibration) were compounded. Experiment 3 investigated blocking. Blocking was less than expected, however. Subjects’ perceptions of the stimuli and reaction time data suggest that a certain proportion had shifted their attention to the added element of the CS compound. Results are discussed in relation to other studies on Pavlovian learning in humans and animals, which are concerned with “stimulus selection.”     

Reasoning rats: forward blocking in Pavlovian animal conditioning is sensitive to constraints of causal inference

Forward blocking is one of the best-documented phenomena in Pavlovian animal conditioning. According to contemporary associative learning theories, forward blocking arises directly from the hardwired basic learning rules that govern the acquisition or expression of associations. Contrary to this view, here the authors demonstrate that blocking in rats is flexible and sensitive to constraints of causal inference, such as violation of additivity and ceiling considerations. This suggests that complex cognitive processes akin to causal inferential reasoning are involved in a well-established Pavlovian animal conditioning phenomenon commonly attributed to the operation of basic associative processes.     

Overshadowing of a stimulus-reinforcer association by an instrumental response

In two experiments, rats were first exposed to pairings of a clicker and food; they were subsequently, in order to measure the effectiveness of the clicker as a conditioned reinforcer, given the opportunity to press a lever which turned the clicker on. For one group of animals the food originally delivered in the presence of the clicker had been contingent on their performance of an instrumental response (running in a running wheel); for a second the contingency between clicker and food had been purely classical. Although the actual correlation between clicker and food was identical for the two groups, the clicker was a less effective conditioned reinforcer for the first group than for the second. In a third experiment, all animals were initially required to run to obtain food in the presence of the clicker, but one group received additional trials on which food was delivered contingent on running in the absence of the clicker. This group showed less tendency to lever press for the clicker than a second group that had received free food on trials when the clicker was not presented. The results of all three experiments suggest that conditioning to the clicker could be overshadowed if the occurrence of food was more reliably predicted by the execution of an instrumental running response; they thus support the view that instrumental conditioning depends on the establishment of an association between response and reinforcer similar to the association between stimulus and reinforcer underlying classical conditioning.     

Auditory forward and backward masking interaction

Recent research on forward masking and backward masking has led us to the hypothesis that combined forward and backward masking may involve at least two different types of interaction patterns. The previously documented interaction results in masking are greater than predicted by the simple summation of masking effects obtained with each masker alone (Lynn & Small, 1977; Patterson, 1971; Wilson & Carhart, 1971). Another possible type of interaction is based upon the finding that backward masking, but not forward masking, can be reduced by cues providing timing information (Puleo & Pastore, 1980). A forward masker appears to involve minimum temporal uncertainty (Pastore & Freda, 1980) and, therefore, should be able to act as such a source of timing information to reduce the contribution of a later occurring backward masker. Both types of interaction patterns were found, with the specific forward and backward masker parameters determining which pattern is observed.     

Backward and forward blocking in human electrodermal conditioning: Blocking requires an assumption of outcome additivity

Blocking was observed in two human Pavlovian conditioning studies in which colour cues signalled shock. Both forward (Experiment 1) and backward (Experiment 2) blocking was demonstrated, but only when prior verbal and written instructions suggested that if two signals of shock (A+ and B+) were presented together, a double shock would result (AB++). In this case, participants could assume that the outcome magnitude was additive. Participants given non-additivity instructions (A+ and B+ combined would result in the same outcome, a single shock) failed to show blocking. Modifications required for associative models of learning, and normative statistical accounts of causal induction, to account for the impact of additivity instructions on the blocking effect, are discussed. It is argued that the blocking shown in the present experiments resulted from the operation, not of an error-correction learning rule, nor of a simple contingency detection mechanism, but of a more complex inferential process based on propositional knowledge. Consistent with the present data, blocking is a logical outcome of an A+/AB+ design only if participants can assume that outcomes will be additive.     

The effect of cuing after backward conditioning trials

Rats were given backward pairings of a tone (CS) and shock (US) and were then tested for response to the CS in a lick suppression test. Animals given a cuing or reminder treatment prior to the test exhibited enhanced suppression in the presence of the tone relative to a variety of control conditions. The cue-induced suppression enhancement did not appear to result from sensitization or short-term motivational changes nor did it seem to depend on second-order conditioning of the test context. The effect appeared more robust as the number of backward conditioning trials preceding the cue increased. The results were discussed in terms of current explanations of backward conditioning effects.     

The influence of forward and backward associative strength on false memories for encoding context

Two experiments examined the effects of forward associative strength (FAS) and backward associative strength (BAS) on false recollection of unstudied lure items. Themes were constructed such that four associates were strongly related to a lure item in terms of FAS or BAS and four associates were weakly related to a lure item in terms of FAS or BAS. Further, when FAS was manipulated, BAS was controlled across strong and weak associates, while FAS was controlled across strong and weak associates when BAS was manipulated. Strong associates were presented in one font while weak associates were presented in a second font. At test, lure items were disproportionately attributed to the source used to present lures' strong associates compared to lures' weak associates, both when BAS was manipulated and when FAS was manipulated. This outcome demonstrates that both BAS and FAS influence lure item false recollection, which favours global-matching models' explanation of false recollection over the explanation offered by spreading activation theories.     

The effect of Pavlovian stimuli on the acquisition of a new response

Three experiments explored the effects of response dependent stimuli which have had different types of contingent relationships with positive reinforcement. Results showed consistent differences in the effects of response dependent appetitive Pavlovian CS + s, CS ? s, and truly random control (TRC) stimuli on the acquisition of a new response. These differences were shown in both a free operant and a discrete-trial learning situation. Appetitive Pavlovian CS?s consistently produced lower levels of responding than did TRC stimuli, even in an experimental situation free of possible contrast effects. The results of these experiments extended a contingency analysis of acquired associations to appetitive conditioning and provided a clear demonstration of a conditioned reinforcement effect against a variety of control procedures.     

The influence of forward and backward associative strength on false recognition

In an experiment, I examined the influence of 2 associative factors on false memory in the Deese-Roediger-McDermott paradigm (Deese, 1959; Roediger & McDermott, 1995): the strength of the association from studied items to unstudied lure items (backward associative strength, or BAS) and the strength of the association from unstudied lure items to studied items (forward associative strength, or FAS). BAS and FAS were manipulated, and participants were asked to respond rapidly at retrieval or were allowed to respond in a self-paced manner in order to examine the contributions of automatic and controlled memory processes to lure errors. The results of this study demonstrated that both BAS and FAS influenced lure errors under speeded retrieval conditions and under self-paced retrieval conditions, as well as that lure errors generally increased when retrieval time increased. These results favor the explanation of false memory offered by global-matching models over those of activation-monitoring theory and fuzzy-trace theory.     

Signal-controlled responding

Pigeons' key pecks were reinforced with grain, then extinguished. An 8-second tone preceded the availability of peck-dependent grain 1 second after tone offset. When a tone signalled grain and an 8-second clicking sound did not, three pigeons pecked during a high percentage of tone periods, but they pecked during a low percentage of click periods. When the roles of the tone and clicking sound were reversed, performance reversed. For other birds, when a key peck during the tone cancelled the availability of grain (omission procedure), the tendency to key peck during the tone decreased some, but still remained high. A third group of pigeons received the omission procedure with the addition that the tone could not end unless 2 seconds had elapsed without a key peck. The pigeons continued to respond in a high percentage of tone periods. The experiments favor an explanation based on the pairing of the tone with a reinforced response, such as Pavlovian conditioning.     

A comparison of backward and forward spatial spans

The standard Corsi blocks task is frequently used to measure the capacity of visuospatial working memory, but the implications of the use of both forward and backward recall are still unclear. In the present study, we showed that the backward Corsi task is particularly powerful in discriminating between low- and high-spatial-ability individuals and involves different processes from those involved in the forward task. From a sample of 425 participants we selected one group of 20 high-spatial-ability participants and one of 20 low-spatial-ability participants. The results demonstrated that a backward spatial span offers specific information not available from a forward spatial span, and that there was no facilitation due to a descending format. In particular, in the low-spatial-ability group, performance was generally poorer, but backward Corsi recall was lower than forward recall, and participants did not show any advantage following the descending presentation format—which in some contexts is considered to reduce proactive interference. We conclude that the backward Corsi task has specific value and that the assumption of fully parallel verbal and visuospatial working-memory systems can lead to a variety of misunderstandings.     

A comparison of backward and forward spatial spans

The standard Corsi blocks task is frequently used to measure the capacity of visuospatial working memory, but the implications of the use of both forward and backward recall are still unclear. In the present study, we showed that the backward Corsi task is particularly powerful in discriminating between low- and high-spatial-ability individuals and involves different processes from those involved in the forward task. From a sample of 425 participants we selected one group of 20 high-spatial-ability participants and one of 20 low-spatial-ability participants. The results demonstrated that a backward spatial span offers specific information not available from a forward spatial span, and that there was no facilitation due to a descending format. In particular, in the low-spatial-ability group, performance was generally poorer, but backward Corsi recall was lower than forward recall, and participants did not show any advantage following the descending presentation format—which in some contexts is considered to reduce proactive interference. We conclude that the backward Corsi task has specific value and that the assumption of fully parallel verbal and visuospatial working-memory systems can lead to a variety of misunderstandings.