Comparisons of stimulus learning and response learning in a punishment situation

These experiments use a procedure in which a rat is trained to make two topographically distinct responses on a single manipulandum, and then one of the responses is punished. Differential suppression of the punished response is taken as evidence of response learning, whereas the common suppression of both responses is attributed to stimulus learning or to general and nonassociative factors. Thus, this procedure begins the experimental separation of animals learning about the consequences of their behavior and animals learning what happens in a particular environment. A further separation is effected by using two such manipulanda; this procedure begins to distinguish between stimulus learning about the manipulandum and the more gereral factors that cause suppression. Some parameters affecting the relative importance of stimulus learning and response learning are examined.     

Stimulus learning versus response learning in a discriminated punishment situation

The suppression of bar pressing under two kinds of conditions was compared. Under one condition the response was occasionally punished by shock in the presence of a signal. Suppression to the signal was quickly acquired, indicating rapid learning about the signal-shock relationship (stimulus learning). Under the other condition the response was occasionally punished in the presence of the signal but additional free shocks were given in the absence of the signal. The slow acquisition of suppression found in this case indicated that there was, at best, only gradual learning about the response-shock relationship (response learning).     

Contributions of striatal subregions to place and response learning

The involvement of different subregions of the striatum in place and response learning was examined using a T-maze. Rats were given NMDA lesions of the dorsolateral striatum (DLS), anterior dorsomedial striatum (ADMS), posterior dorsomedial striatum (PDMS), or sham surgery. They were then trained to retrieve food from the west arm of the maze, starting from the south arm, by turning left at the choice point. After 7 d of training, with four trials a day, a probe test was given in which the starting arm is inserted as the north arm, at the opposite side of the maze. A left turn would indicate a "response" strategy; a right turn, a "place" strategy. The rats were then trained for 7 more days, followed by a second probe test. Unlike rats in the other groups, most of the rats in the PDMS group turned left, using the response strategy on both probe tests. These results suggest that the PDMS plays a role in spatially guided behavior.     

An assessment of response, direction and place learning by rats in a water T-maze

Behavioral data suggest that distinguishable orientations may be necessary for place learning even when distal cues define different start points in the room and a unique goal location. We examined whether changes in orientation are also important in place learning and navigation in a water T-maze. In Experiment 1, rats were trained to locate a hidden platform and given a no-platform probe trial after 16 and 64 trials with the maze moved to a new position. Direction and response strategies were more prevalent than a place strategy. In Experiment 2, acquisition of place, response and direction strategies was assessed in a water T-maze that was moved between two locations during training. Rats were impaired on the place task when the maze was translated (moved to the L or R) but were successful when the maze was rotated across trials. These data are consistent with findings from appetitive tasks.     

Discrimination learning in a foraging situation

Rats were allowed to forage in a simulated natural environment made up of eight food sources (patches) each containing a fixed number of pellets. Two of the eight contained an extra supply of peanuts. The peanut patches were signaled by an olfactory/visual cue located at the bottom of the ladder leading to the patch. In successive phases the number of sessions per day, height of the patches, and availability of peanuts were manipulated. Subjects showed evidence of discrimination learning under these conditions, although the degree of discriminatory behavior varied as a function of environmental manipulations. Assessment of behavior within foraging sessions showed that subjects systematically changed their patterns of utilization of patches across time. Sampling or exploration, as well as food reinforcement, seem implicated in these results.     

The effect of experience on children's ability to show response and place learning

From a developmental perspective, it has been reasoned that over the course of development children make differential use of available landmarks in the surroundings to orient in space. The present study examined whether children can learn to apply different spatial strategies, focusing on different landmark cues. Children aged 7 and 10 years were tested on an object‐location memory task in which they learned a location relative to a direct cue or to indirect cues. Both age groups performed equally well on the direct test condition. However, children 7 years of age had difficulties with orienting relative to the indirect landmarks. Interestingly, their performance increased significantly with more relevant experience. Different explanations for these findings are discussed.     

An analysis of response,direction, and place learning in an open field and T maze

Rats were trained to locate food in a response, direction, or place problem on an open field located at 2 positions. In Experiment 1, both the response and direction groups solved the problem. The place group failed to solve the task in approximately 300 trials. Experiment 2 demonstrated that rats need distinguishable start points to solve a place problem when neither a response nor a direction solution is available. Findings from Experiment 3 suggest that a combination of path traveled and distinct cues help to differentiate start points. Experiment 4 replicated the findings using a T maze. These results suggest "place" solutions are difficult for rats. The data are discussed with respect to conditional learning and modern spatial mapping theory.     

Learning on a response continuum: Comparison of a linear change and a functional learning model

Two reinforcement schedules were used to compare the predictive validity of a linear change model with a functional learning model. In one schedule, termed “convergent,” the linear change model predicts convergence to the optimum response, while in the other, termed “divergent,” this model predicts that a subject's response will not converge. The functional learning model predicts convergence in both cases. Another factor that was varied was presence or absence of random error or “noise” in the relationship between response and outcome. In the “noiseless” condition, in which no noise is added, a subject could discover the optimum response by chance, so that some subjects could appear to have converged fortuitously. In the “noisy” conditions such chance apparent convergence could not occur.The results did not unequivocally favor either model. While the linear change model's prediction of nonconvergence in the divergent conditions (particularly the “noisy” divergent condition) was not sustained, there was a clear difference in speed of convergence, counter to the prediction inferred from the functional learning model. Evidence that at least some subjects were utilizing a functional learning strategy was adduced from the fact that subjects were able to “map out” the relation between response and outcome quite accurately in a follow-up task. Almost all subjects in the “noisy” conditions had evidently “learned” a strong linear relation, with slope closely matching the veridical one.The data were consistent with a hybrid model assuming a “hierarchy of cognitive strategies” in which more complex strategies (e.g., functional learning) are utilized only when the simpler ones (e.g., a linear change strategy) fail to solve the problem.