Acquired equivalence and distinctiveness of cues: I. Exploring a neural network approach

Rats were placed in 4 contexts (A, B, C, D) where they received 2 auditory stimuli (X, Y); in A and B, presentations of X were paired with food and those of Y were not, and in C and D, Y was paired with food and X was not. Rats then received combinations of contexts that had provided congruent (AB, CD) or incongruent (AD, CB) information about X and Y's relationship to food. Responding was more variable during congruent than incongruent trials (Experiment 1) and was systematically increased and decreased during congruent (relative to incongruent) trials by the presentation of food or no food, respectively (Experiment 2). These results support a connectionist approach to acquired changes in stimulus distinctiveness.     

Transfer of configural learning between the components of a preexposed stimulus compound: implications for elemental and configural models of learning

In 2 experiments, rats received preexposure to 2 compound contexts: AB and CD for the congruent group and AC and BD for the incongruent group. Subsequently, all rats received a configural discrimination in which separate placement in contexts A or B indicated that presentations of stimulus X would be followed by food and presentations of Y would not, and separate placement in contexts C and D indicated that Y would be followed by food and X would not. In both experiments, rats in the congruent group acquired the conditional discrimination more rapidly than those in the incongruent group. These results are inconsistent with conventional associative accounts of either stimulus preexposure effects or configural learning and instead provide support for a connectionist account.     

Contextual control of biconditional task performance: Evidence for cue and response competition in rats

A novel paradigm is presented that was designed to mimic aspects of cue and response competition seen in humans in conflict procedures such as the Stroop task. Rats were trained simultaneously on two biconditional discrimination tasks, one auditory and one visual, in two different contexts: C1, in which A1:LP1 → R, A2:LP2 → R; and C2, in which V1:LP1 → R, V2:LP2 → R, where C1/C2 represent different training contexts (produced by different operant chambers), A1/A2 are different auditory cues, V1/V2 are different visual cues, LP1/LP2 are discrete operant responses, and R is reward. At test, rats received presentations of audiovisual compounds of these training stimuli in extinction. These compounds had dictated either the same (A1V1 or A2V2) or different (A1V2 or A2V1) responses during training: termed congruent and incongruent trials, respectively. Experiment 1 showed that following equal training on the two biconditional tasks, the contextual cues came to control responding to conflicting information provided by incongruent stimulus compounds such that animals responded according to the stimulus element previously trained in that test context. Experiment 2 demonstrated that differential training on the biconditional discriminations (with rats receiving training on the two discriminations in the ratio 3∶1) resulted in greater interference from the overtrained task when animals were tested in the undertrained context. This finding is similar to the classic Stroop asymmetry seen in human performance whereby dominant word reading interferes with colour naming for incongruent colour–word compounds. Further analysis also revealed some evidence for a reverse Stroop effect in which the undertrained stimulus element interfered with performance on the overtrained task.     

Stimulus-outcome interactions during instrumental discrimination learning by rats and humans

The associative structure mediating goal-directed action was investigated using congruent and incongruent conditional discriminations. The stimulus was the same as the outcome in each component of the congruent discriminations, whereas the stimulus of one component of the incongruent discriminations was the same as the outcome of the other component. Humans, but not rats, learned the congruent discrimination more rapidly than the incongruent discrimination, a difference that the authors attribute to the fact that outcome-response associations caused response conflict in the incongruent discrimination. Moreover, responding was resistant to outcome devaluation following incongruent, but not congruent, training, suggesting that both humans and rats adopted a stimulus-response strategy to resolve the incongruent discrimination.     

Acquisition of superexcitatory properties by an irrelevant background stimulus

Six appetitive conditioning experiments with rats demonstrated that an irrelevant X accompanying a negative patterning discrimination (XA+, XB+, XAB-) acquires extraordinarily high levels of conditioned excitation. Responding to X was similar to that evoked by 2 excitors in combination (Experiment 1) and was greater than responding to a separately reinforced Y (Experiments 2-5). Superexcitatory properties were not acquired by X in the nonpatterning discriminations of Experiments 2-4. Experiment 5 found that A and B, if anything, were weakly excitatory. Making them more strongly excitatory after conditioning did not interfere with retention of the original discrimination (Experiment 6). Results support a counterintuitive prediction of associative theories that, under carefully arranged conditions, irrelevant stimuli may acquire superexcitatory properties.     

Representational blending in human conditional learning: Implications for associative theory.

In two experiments, participants were presented with pictures of different foods (A, B, C, D, X,) and learned which combinations resulted in an allergic reaction in a fictitious patient, Mr X. In Problem 1, when A or B (but not C or D) was combined with food X an allergic reaction occurred, and when C or D (but not A or B) was combined with Y an allergic reaction occurred. In Experiment 1, participants also received Problem 2 in which A, B, C, and D interacted with foods V and W either in the same way as X and Y, respectively, or in a different way. Participants performed more proficiently in the former than in the latter condition. In Experiment 2, after training on Problem 1, participants judged whether or not novel combinations of foods (e.g., AB, CD, AD, CB) would cause an allergic reaction in Mr X. They were no more likely to indicate that AB or CD would cause an allergic reaction than AD or CB, but made their judgements more rapidly and with greater confidence on AB and CD trials than on AD and CB trials. These results (1) indicate that shared representations come to be addressed by the components of similar compounds (e.g., AX and BX) that have predicted the same outcome (an allergic reaction), and (2) are inconsistent with standard, associative theories of learning, but (3) are consistent with findings from nonhuman animals and with a connectionist interpretation of these findings.     

Acquired equivalence between stimuli trained in the same context

The role of context was examined in human acquired equivalence. Participants were trained on two conditional discriminations. In the first conditional discrimination, if sample A1 was presented, choice of comparison B1, but not B2, was correct, and if sample A2 was presented, choice of comparison B2, but not B1, was correct. In the second conditional discrimination, if sample X1 was presented, choice of comparison Y1, but not Y2, was correct, and if sample X2 was presented, choice of comparison Y2, but not Y1, was correct. In each conditional discrimination, one of the conditional relations was trained in context 1 (e.g., A1 → B1 and X1 → Y1) and the other was trained in context 2 (i.e., A2 → B2 and X2 → Y2). On test trials, when conditional stimuli from the two conditional discriminations were interchanged (e.g., sample A1 was presented with comparisons Y1 and Y2) and were presented in a neutral context, positive transfer resulted. That is, in the absence of the training context, stimuli that shared a common context on different trials in training came to be treated as equivalent.     

Transfer of value from S+ to S- in simultaneous discriminations in humans

When animals learn a simultaneous discrimination, some of the value of the positive stimulus (S+) appears to transfer to the negative stimulus (S-). The present experiments demonstrate that such value transfer can also be found in humans. In Experiment 1 humans were trained on 2 simple simultaneous discriminations, the first between a highly positive stimulus, A (1,000 points); and a negative stimulus, B (0 points); and the second between a less positive stimulus, C (100 points); and a negative stimulus, D (0 points). On test trials, most participants preferred B over D. In Experiments 2 and 3 the value of the 2 original discriminations was equated in training (A[100]B[0] and C[100]D[0]). In Experiment 2 the values of the positive stimuli were then altered (A[1,000]C[0]); again, most participants preferred B over D. In Experiment 3, however, when the values of B and D were altered (B[1,000]D[0]), participants were indifferent to A and C. Thus, the mechanism that underlies value transfer in humans appears to be related to Pavlovian second-order conditioning. Similar mechanisms may be involved in assimilation processes in social contexts.     

Transfer of specific contextual functions to novel conditional discriminations

Three adolescents and 4 children participated in studies designed to examine contextually controlled conditional discrimination performance. In Study 1, participants selected Comparison B1 in the presence one stimulus (A1) and Comparison B2 in the presence of another stimulus (A2) using a matching-to-sample procedure. Next, contextual stimuli X1 or X2 were presented, such that in the presence of X1, selection of B1 given A1 and selection of B2 given A2 were reinforced; and in the presence of X2, selection of B2 given A1 and selection of B1 given A2 were reinforced. Then, new conditional discriminations were taught with Stimuli E and F. When the contextual Stimuli X1 and X2 were presented, participants selected the same comparisons as previously established in the EF relations in the presence of X1, but the opposite comparison as in the EF relations in the presence of X2. The results then were replicated with new Stimuli G and H. In Study 2, a new conditional discrimination, CD, was taught. Then, four combinations of two-element samples--C1 and D1, C2 and D2, C1 and D2, or C2 and D1--were presented with X1 and X2 as comparisons. Five of 6 participants selected X1 in the presence of C1 and D1 or C2 and D2, and selected X2 in the presence of C1 and D2 or C2 and D1. Finally, in Study 3, two new discriminations IJ and JK were taught. Then, the transitive IK relations were tested with X1 and X2 as contextual stimuli. The 4 participants selected K1 in the presence of I1 and K2 in the presence of I2 when the contextual stimulus was X1--demonstrating class formation--and selected the other comparisons when the contextual stimulus was X2. These results suggest that the contextual control functions of X1 and X2 transferred even to relations that had not been directly taught. These results extend those demonstrating generalized contextual control by showing transfer of functions of the contextual stimuli in transitivity tests and when the former contextual stimuli were presented as comparisons.     

The influence of head contour and nose angle on the perception of eye-gaze direction

We report seven experiments that investigate the influence that head orientation exerts on the perception of eye-gaze direction. In each of these experiments, participants were asked to decide whether the eyes in a brief and masked presentation were looking directly at them or were averted. In each case, the eyes could be presented alone, or in the context of congruent or incongruent stimuli In Experiment 1A, the congruent and incongruent stimuli were provided by the orientation of face features and head outline. Discrimination of gaze direction was found to be better when face and gaze were congruent than in both of the other conditions, an effect that was not eliminated by inversion of the stimuli (Experiment 1B). In Experiment 2A, the internal face features were removed, but the outline of the head profile was found to produce an identical pattern of effects on gaze discrimination, effects that were again insensitive to inversion (Experiment 2B) and which persisted when lateral displacement of the eyes was controlled (Experiment 2C). Finally, in Experiment 3A, nose angle was also found to influence participants' ability to discriminate direct gaze from averted gaze, but here the effect was eliminated by inversion of the stimuli (Experiment 3B). We concluded that an image-based mechanism is responsible for the influence of head profile on gaze perception, whereas the analysis of nose angle involves the configural processing of face features.     

Effects of overtraining on reversal learning by rats in concurrent and single discriminations

Two experiments examined the whole-partial effect of overtraining in concurrent discriminations and assessed the effect against single discrimination training in rats. In Experiment 1 overtraining facilitated reversal in Group W, in which rats were given concurrent training on two simultaneous discrimination tasks (A and B) in original learning before both tasks were reversed. By contrast, overtraining delayed reversal in Group P, in which animals were given the same training as in Group W in original learning, but only Task A was reversed. After overtraining, Group W reversed more rapidly than Group P. Without overtraining, Group P reversed more rapidly than both Group W and Group C, in which animals were trained only on Task A before this task was reversed. Experiment 2 investigated the effects of overtraining on the reversal of a successive discrimination in Groups W, P, and C. In addition, animals in a further group, Group S, received the same concurrent training as Group W before Task B was omitted and Task A reversed. Overtraining facilitated reversal in Groups W, C, and S but delayed it in Group P. After overtraining, Group W reversed more rapidly than Groups P, S, and C. Both Groups S and C also reversed more rapidly than did Group P. Without overtraining, Group P reversed more rapidly than Groups W, S, and C. There were no significant differences in reversal performance among Groups W, S, and C. These findings indicate that the effects of overtraining on reversal learning in concurrent discriminations differ from those observed in single discriminations.     

Encoding specific associative memory: evidence from behavioral and neural manipulations

Within-subjects procedures with rats assessed the associative structures acquired during conditioning trials in which the interval between the stimuli and food was either short or long (i.e., A-10 s→food and B-40 s→food). In Experiments 1 and 2, after these conditioning trials, A and B served as second-order reinforcers for 2 further stimuli (i.e., X→A and Y→B); whereas Experiment 3 used a sensory preconditioning procedure in which X→A and Y→B trials occurred before the conditioning trials, and rats were finally tested with X and Y. In each experiment, Y elicited greater responding at test than did X. This finding supports the contention that the long-lived trace of B (associated with food on B-40 s→food trials) is more similar to the memory of B that was associatively provoked by Y, than is the short-lived trace of A (associated with food on A-10 s→food trials) to the memory of A that was associatively provoked by X. These conclusions were reinforced by the effects of a neural manipulation that disrupted discrimination learning involving the short traces of stimuli but not the long traces of the same stimuli.     

Conditions favoring superconditioning of irrelevant conditioned stimuli

Three appetitive conditioning experiments with rats found partial learning of complex XA+, XB+, XAB- (+ stands for reinforced; - stands for unreinforced) negative patterning discriminations with intermixed A+ and B+ trials (Experiment 1). AB+ trials (Experiment 2), and A+, B+, and AB+ trials (Experiment 3). In all experiments, differential responding emerged more slowly during the learning of the negative patterning discriminations than during learning of the XA+, XB+, XC- control discriminations. Additionally, the negative patterning groups responded more to X than to a separately reinforced Y on unreinforced test trials: thus, X derived superexcitatory properties. This pattern was reversed in the control groups. Results are consistent with theories that allow for different activation patterns when elements are combined.     

Common control by compound samples in conditional discriminations

We tested whether teaching control by single stimulus samples in conditional discriminations would result in common control of two-stimuli compound samples, and vice versa. In Experiment 1, 5 participants were first taught four single-sample conditional discriminations. The first conditional discrimination was as follows: given sample stimulus P1, select comparison stimulus A1 and not A2; given sample P2 select comparison A2 and not A1. The second conditional discrimination was as follows: given sample P1 select comparison B1 and not B2; given sample P2 select B2 and not B1. Different sample stimuli (Q1 and Q2) were used in the third and fourth conditional discriminations. Moreover, A1 and B1 were presented together as comparisons, such that, if Q1 was presented as the sample, A1 was correct and B1 was incorrect; and if Q2 was presented as the sample, B1 was correct and A1 was incorrect. A2 and B2 were also presented as comparisons. When Q1 was presented, A2 was correct and when Q2 was presented B2 was correct. After training with these four single stimulus sample discriminations, participants were tested with compound PQ samples presented with A1, A2, B1, and B2 as comparisons. If common control were established by the PQ stimuli, a participant would select A1 when P1Q1 was presented, A2 when P2Q1 was presented, B1 when P1Q2 was presented, and B2 when P2Q2 was presented. Such common control by PQ samples occurred in 4 of 5 participants. In Experiment 2, 4 participants were given reverse training. They were first taught to select the A1, A2, B1, and B2 stimuli in response to the appropriate PQ combinations and then probed on the single stimulus sample discriminations. All 4 participants were successful on this probe. Experiments 3 and 4 investigated the effects of teaching additional conditional discriminations with novel stimuli on subsequent transfer from the single-sample discriminations to performance on the compound-sample conditional discrimination.     

Transfer and Counterconditioning of Conditional Control in the Rabbit Nictitating Membrane Response

Two experiments using the rabbit nictitating membrane response investigated whether training in one conditional discrimination (A X+, B X-), enabled the feature cues (A and B) to modulate responding to another CS (Y) trained as a target stimulus in a second conditional discrimination (C Y+, D Y-). There was near-complete transfer of the feature cue's conditional control, indicating that the feature cue's ability to modulate responding is not based on an association specific to the training target. Experiment 2 also revealed that the role of a stimulus to act as a conditional cue is affected by its ability to act as a simple conditioned excitor or inhibitor. Following initial acquisition of two conditional discriminations, two feature cues were reinforced in a pattern consistent with the initial conditional discrimination (A +, B-), whereas the other two feature cues were reinforced in the reverse pattern to that of the original conditional discrimination (C-, D +). Subsequent tests revealed that the reversed training of the feature cues interfered with the original conditional discriminations. The results are consistent with theories that the feature cue gains an association with a representation of the emotional attributes of the US, which acts to modulate responding to the target stimulus through a diffuse change in motivational level. However, hierarchical theories of conditional discriminations that assume a lack of CS-specificity may also be able to explain the findings.     

Overshadowing and associability change

Three appetitive Pavlovian conditioning experiments with rats examined the associability of stimuli A and B that had a history of compound conditioning (AB+), relative to stimuli X and Y that had a history of conditioning in isolation (X+, Y+). Following this training, Experiment 1 revealed that conditioned responding was higher to X and Y than to A and B (overshadowing). In a subsequent AY+, AX-, BY- test discrimination, the AY/BY discrimination was solved more readily than the AY/AX discrimination. In Experiment 2, following AB+, X+, Y+ training, A and Y were presented as a compound and signaled the availability of reinforcement upon the performance of an instrumental response. Test trials in which A and Y were presented alone, and in extinction, revealed that A acquired greater control of instrumental responding than Y. Experiment 3 revealed that following AB+, X+, Y+ training, A and B served as more effective discriminative stimuli for instrumental responding than X and Y. Overall, these results imply that the associability of stimuli conditioned in compound is higher than stimuli conditioned in isolation. These results are discussed in terms of attentional theories of associative learning.     

Sequential and simultaneous feature positive discriminations: occasion setting and configural learning in human Pavlovian conditioning

Using a conditioned suppression preparation, the authors investigated sequential (X --> A+/A-) versus simultaneous (XA+/A-) feature positive (FP) discrimination learning in humans. The sequential discrimination was expected to be resolved by means of a Feature X Modulated Target A-US association and the simultaneous discrimination by a feature X-US association. After sequential FP training, extinction of Feature X did not affect discriminative X --> A/A responding (Experiment 1), and X transferred its modulatory ability only to new targets, B, that had also been modulated (Experiment 2). This suggests that the sequential FP discrimination indeed resulted in occasion setting. Unlike expected, Feature X Extinction did not affect discriminative XA/A responding after simultaneous FP training (Experiment 3), while at the same time Feature X did show the predicted nonselective transfer to new targets, B (Experiment 4). J. M. Pearce's (1987) configural learning theory can account for most but not all findings of Experiments 3 and 4.     

A role for stimulus generalization in conditional discrimination learning

In each of three experiments on discrimination learning by rats, whether or not a 10-sec target stimulus was followed by food was determined by the nature of a 2-min background stimulus that accompanied it. A conditional discrimination was employed in Experiment 1 such that background A indicated food would follow one target but not the other, whereas this relationship between the targets and food was reversed in the presence of background B. Experiment 2 employed two feature-positive discriminations. Subsequent test trials revealed that the background for one discrimination was able to enhance responding during the target for the other discrimination. Experiment 3 employed a feature-positive and a feature-negative discrimination prior to test trials in which each target was presented separately during a compound of both background stimuli. The compound enhanced responding to the target from the feature-positive discrimination and reduced it to the target from the feature-negative discrimination. We suggest that to accommodate all these findings, the best explanation is provided by a configural model of Pavlovian conditioning.     

Intertrial interval as a contextual stimulus: further analysis of a novel asymmetry in temporal discrimination learning

Four experiments investigated discrimination learning when the duration of the intertrial interval (ITI) signaled whether or not the next conditional stimulus (CS) would be paired with food pellets. Rats received presentations of a 10-s CS separated half the time by long ITIs and half the time by short ITIs. When the long ITI signaled that the CS would be reinforced and the short interval signaled that it would not be (Long+/Short-), rats learned the discrimination readily. However, when the short ITI signaled that the CS would be reinforced and the long interval signaled that it would not (Short+/Long-), discrimination learning was much slower. Experiment 1 compared Long+/Short- and Short+/Long- discrimination learning with 16-min/4-min or 4-min/1-min ITI combinations. Experiment 2 found no evidence that Short+/Long- learning is inferior because the temporal cue corresponding to the short interval is ambiguous. Experiment 3 found no evidence that Short+/Long- learning is poor because the end of a long ITI signals a substantial reduction in delay to the next reinforcer. Long+/Short- learning may be faster than Short+/Long-because elapsing time involves exposure to a sequence of hypothetical stimulus elements (e.g., A then B), and feature-positive discriminations (AB+/A-) are learned quicker than feature-negative discriminations (A+/AB-). Consistent with this view, Experiment 4 found a robust feature-positive effect when sequentially presented CSs played the role of elements A and B.     

The role of similarity in human associative learning

In 2 experiments, humans received sequences of patterns that were similar (AX-->BX, AY-->BY, AZ-->BZ) or dissimilar (CX-->DY, CY-->DZ, CZ-->DX). The patterns were portrayed as bugs that could be eliminated with 2 insecticide sprays (red or blue). Either spray eliminated bugs with Features A and C, and participants learned by trial and error to use one spray (e.g., red) to eliminate bugs with Feature B and the other spray (e.g., blue) to eliminate those with Feature D. In Experiment 1, participants' spray choice for bugs with Feature A came to match that used to eliminate bugs with Feature B, but there was no such associative transfer between Features C and D. That is, similarity promoted associative transfer of responding between paired patterns when the features used to manipulate similarity (i.e., X, Y, and Z) were irrelevant. In Experiment 2, in which X, Y, and Z were relevant to the solution of configural discrimination, similarity hindered such associative transfer. These results complement those found in pigeons (R. A. Rescorla & D. J. Gillan, 1980) and indicate that similarity should not be accorded independent status as a principle of associative learning.