Occasion setting is specific to the CS-US association

In Experiment 1, rats were trained on a discrimination in which one occasion setter, A, signaled that one cue (conditioned stimulus, CS), x, would be followed by one outcome, p (unconditioned stimulus, US), and a second CS, y, by a different outcome, q (x → p and y → q); a second occasion setter, B signalled the reverse CS-outcome relations (x → q and y → p). In a subsequent stage, the animals were divided into two groups, and trained as before, except that both A and B were presented in compound with a novel occasion setter, C. For Group S (same) the CS-outcome relations following A and B were identical to those in the pretraining stage, whereas in Group D (different) they were reversed. In a subsequent test, stimulus C was shown to be a more effective occasion setter in Group D than in Group S. In Experiment 2, rats were trained on a negative occasion-setting discrimination in which CS x signaled outcome p, and y outcome q; when x and y were signaled by the occasion setter A then no outcome followed (x → p, y → q, A:x-, and A:y-). In a subsequent stage, A was now trained as a positive occasion setter, signaling reinforcement of x and y. In Group S, x and y signaled the same outcomes as in the prior training stage (x-, y-, A:x → p, and A:y → q), whereas in Group D they signaled the opposite outcomes (x, y, A:x → q, and A:y → p); more efficient test performance was seen in the latter group. These results suggest that the each occasion setter conveyed information about the specific combination of CS and US paired in its presence (i.e., x → p and y → q, or x → no p and y → no q). These results are consistent with the suggestion that occasion setters operate, at least in part, on a specific CS-US association.     

Associative learning of discrimination with masked stimuli

Great controversy exists on whether associative learning occurs without awareness. In Experiment 1, 31 participants received discrimination training by repeated presentations of two stimulus sequences (S1_A → S2_A, and S1_B → S2_B), S1 being a masked stimulus. S2 were imperative stimuli for a reaction time (RT) task. After the acquisition phase, all participants were tested with 20 presentations of congruent (S1_A → S2_A and S1_B → S2_B) and incongruent (S1_A → S2_B and S1_B → S2_A) stimulus sequences. The RT in the testing phase was faster in congruent than in incongruent stimulus sequences. These results are considered strong evidence of associative learning without awareness of the contingency between the stimuli. A second experiment was designed with SOA varied between three groups (23, 58, and 117 ms). The results showed that the participants responded more quickly to congruent stimulus sequences and that the SOA did not affect RT. The SOA did not modify the effect of congruence either, although the interaction was near significance.     

Discriminative functions based on a delay in the reinforcement relation

Pigeons were shown to come under discrimination control when the S^D and S^Δ were temporally separated from reinforcement and non-reinforcement. S^D and S^Δ consisted of distinctive key illuminations presented separately. Responding on an FR 5 in the presence of S^D or S^Δ produced a third stimulus containing a schedule requirement. If this third (or interpolated) stimulus was preceded by S^D, responding in its presence produced reinforcement followed by a time-out (TO). If, on the other hand, the third stimulus was preceded by S^Δ, responding produced TO alone. In this fashion, the same stimulus and the same response requirement were imposed between S^D and the reinforcement as between S^Δ and the TO. In Experiment I, the schedule employed during the interpolated stimulus was FR; in Experiment II, FI. Discrimination reversal was accomplished in both experiments.     

Pavlovian processes do mediate control of the “advance” response strategy

Two parallel experiments used pigeons in a transfer of control design to determine the basis of the transfer of the use of the “advance strategy” across successive discriminations (W. K. Honig & H. Lindsay, Learning and Motivation, 1975, 6, 157–178). Pigeons were first trained under instrumental contingencies to use an “advance” response to maximize their exposure to S^D and minimize their exposure to S^Δ. Then orthogonal stimuli (key lights in Experiment 1 and diffuse illuminations in Experiment 2) were independently established through separate discriminative Pavlovian procedures as CS+ and CS? or as CS^o's. Later in special tests, it was demonstrated that the associative values of the Pavlovian CS's were a major factor governing the use of the advance strategy: only pigeons exposed to $\text{CS+}\text{CS?}$ used the advance response to regulate their exposure to either CS. Although these experiments showed that the necessary and sufficient conditions for utilization of the advance strategy are the Pavlovian associative values of the discriminative stimuli, opportunity for differential “operant” responding during the discriminative stimuli seems to be a contributor to the optimal use of the advance response across successive discriminations.     

The role of drug expectancy in the control of human drug seeking

Human drug seeking may be goal directed in the sense that it is mediated by a mental representation of the drug or habitual in the sense that it is elicited by drug-paired cues directly. To test these 2 accounts, the authors assessed whether a drug-paired stimulus (S+) would transfer control to an independently trained drug-seeking response. Smokers were trained on an instrumental discrimination that established a tobacco S+ in Experiment 1 and a tobacco and a money S+ in Experiment 2 that elicited an expectancy of their respective outcomes. Participants then learned 2 new instrumental responses, 1 for each outcome, in the absence of these stimuli. Finally, in the transfer test, each S+ was found to augment performance of the new instrumental response that was trained with the same outcome. This outcome-specific transfer effect indicates that drug-paired stimuli controlled human drug seeking via a representation or expectation of the drug rather than through a direct stimulus-response association.     

Human Intelligence After Removal of Cerebral Tissue from the Right Frontal LOBE

Present research explored the effect of conditioning history on the performance of imitative behaviors when a choice was given between a reinforced and a nonreinforced behavior or between two reinforced behaviors. The conditioning history consisted of exposure to a repeatedly demonstrated reinforced behavior (S^Dc). During subsequent choice presentations the S^Dc behavior was paired with a reinforced (S^Da) or nonreinforced (S-delta) alternative behavior. A multiple baseline design was utilized to control for the effect of the length of conditioning history. Six institutionalized retarded children served as subjects. The results indicated that the two subjects with no conditioning history imitated the S-delta behaviors as often as the S^Da behaviors and consistently more often than the S^Dc behaviors. In contrast, three of the four subjects who had the conditioning history imitated the S^Dc behaviors more often than both other behaviors and eventually stopped imitating the S-delta behavior. The fourth subject with a conditioning history did not show this response pattern, but showed a preference for imitating the last of two modeled behaviors. No systematic differences in imitative performance were observed between the two pairs of subjects with a conditioning history as a function of the length of conditioning history. The results suggest that the conditioning history may be largely responsible for the differential imitative performance of reinforced and nonreinforced behaviors.     

Memories of reward and nonreward regulate the extinction and reacquisition of both excitatory and inhibitory associations

The memories of the unconditioned stimulus (US) and its absence (No US), symbolized as S^R and S^N, respectively, may be retrieved on US or No US trials giving rise to four types of associations, S^R → US, S^R → No US, S^N → US, and S^N → No US. Here, following acquisition under partial reward (PRF), rats were shifted either to different schedules of PRF (Experiment 1) or extinction (Experiments 1 and 2). Inhibitory S^R → No US associations formed in acquisition survived extinction and shifts to one, but not another type of PRF schedule (Experiments 1 and 2). Excitatory S^R → US associations also survived extinction (Experiment 2). These findings, as well as the acquisition findings of Experiment 2, are consistent with the sequential model but not with the only other two theories said to be able to explain PRF findings, the frustration hypothesis of Amsel and the attention hypothesis of Mackintosh [see Haselgrove, M., Aydin, A., & Pearce, J. M. (2004). A partial reinforcement extinction effect despite equal rates of reinforcement during Pavlovian conditioning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 30, 240–250]. Also, the reacquisition findings obtained here are inconsistent with two views applied to several learning phenomena, the rule-learning view and the position-item view.     

Resolution of outcome-induced response conflict by humans after extended training

Studies of incongruent discrimination learning, where the outcome event of one response acts as the discriminative stimulus for the opposite response, suggest that humans rely on habitual stimulus–response (S–R) associations when outcome–response (O–R) associations would cause response conflict. Here, two experiments were conducted to investigate the robustness of this habitual strategy. In Experiment 1, we found that extensive instrumental discrimination training supported learning about the incongruent R → O contingencies, as assessed by an outcome devaluation test. Differential representations of the stimulus and the (associatively retrieved) outcome may have allowed for goal-directed incongruent performance. Experiment 2 failed to provide evidence for this possibility; direct presentation as well as associative retrieval of the incongruent events (by Pavlovian stimuli) activated the response that was associated with each event in its role of stimulus as opposed to outcome. We did find that participants successfully acquired explicit knowledge of the incongruent contingencies, which raises the possibility that propositional encoding allowed them to overcome the response conflict caused by O–R associations. Alternative associative and propositional accounts of successful goal-directed incongruent performance with extensive training will be discussed.     

A neutral odor may become a sexual incentive through classical conditioning in male rats

A neutral olfactory stimulus was employed as CS in a series of experiments with a sexually receptive female as UCS and the execution of an intromission as the UCR. Each experimental session lasted until the male ejaculated. The time the experimental subject spent in a zone adjacent to the source of the olfactory stimulus during the 10 s of CS presentation and the latency to enter that area were employed as measures of conditioning. In Experiment 1, the CS was always presented at the same location in the conditioning arena, bordering the site where the female became accessible. Conditioning resulted in a gradual increase in the time spent in the CS zone as well as in a reduction of the latency to enter it. In Experiment 2, the site of presentation of the CS was varied randomly from one side of the conditioning arena to another in order to assure that the subjects indeed associated the CS and not a particular location with access to a female. Again, the time spent in the CS zone increased and the latency to enter it was reduced by conditioning. Furthermore, after conditioning the CS was approached more than a neutral odor in a different context. In a third experiment one group of animals was randomly exposed to the CS to control for non-associative effects on performance. Another group was conditioned as in Experiment 2. The random presentation of the CS failed to enhance approach, while the paired UCS-CS had effects identical to those found in Experiment 2. In the last experiment, an olfactory CS⁻ was included. The CS⁺ and CS⁻ were presented in random order at random locations. Both the time spent in the CS⁺ and CS⁻ zones was increased, while the latency to enter the zone was significantly reduced only for the CS⁺. These data suggest that the subjects had partially learned to discriminate between the CS⁺ and the CS⁻, at most. The procedure employed in Experiments 2 and 3 seems to be the most promising for studies of sexual conditioning in male rats.     

Using addition to solve large subtractions in the number domain up to 20

This study examined 25 university students’ use of addition to solve large single-digit subtractions by contrasting performance in the standard subtraction format (12 − 9 = .) and in the addition format (9 + . = 12). In particular, we investigated the effect of the relative size of the subtrahend on performance in both formats. We found a significant interaction between format, the magnitude of the subtrahend (S) compared to the difference (D) (S > D vs. S < D), and the numerical distance between subtrahend and difference. When the subtrahend was larger than the difference and S and D were far from each other (e.g., 12 − 9 = .), problems were solved faster in the addition than in the subtraction format; when the subtrahend was smaller than the difference and S and D were far from each other (e.g., 12 − 3 = .), problems were solved faster in the subtraction than in the addition format. However, when the subtrahend and the difference were close to each other (e.g., 13 − 7 = .), there were no significant reaction time differences between both formats. These results suggest that adults do not rely exclusively and routinely on addition to solve large single-digit subtractions, but select either addition-based or subtraction-based strategies depending on the relative size of the subtrahend.     

Fear as a discriminative stimulus for an appetitive instrumental response

Two experiments tested the hypothesis that anticipation of shock could be established as a discriminative stimulus for an appetitive instrumental response. In multiphase experiments, bar pressing for food was brought under the discriminative control of intermittent and gradually increasing electric shock. In a second phase, tones were estalished as either a CS+, or CS? for shock. Subsequently, the CSs were introduced on to the operant baseline. Animals trained with shock as the S^D showed an increase in responding to the CS+ and a slight decrease to the CS?. Conversely, animals trained with shock as the S^Δ showed decreased responding to the CS+ and slight increase to the CS?. These findings are seen as supportive of the Discriminative Stimulus hypothesis of learned resistance to punishment.     

Generalization and discrimination as a function of the SD — SΔ intensity difference

Three groups of four rats were trained on an auditory-intensity discrimination for 21 days. The S^D-S^Δ intensity difference for Group I was 10 db; for Group II, 20 db; and for Group III, 30 db. Following the initial discrimination training, the animals were tested for generalization of the bar-press response to seven novel S^Δ's which were presented intermingled with the original S^D and S^Δ values. Conclusions: (1.) The amount of simple discrimination training required to obtain fairly stable differences in S^D and S^Δ responding is an inverse function of the magnitude of the stimulus difference between S^D and S^Δ. (2.) Generalization gradients obtained immediately following simple discrimination training exhibit a maximum displaced from S^D in a direction also away from S^Δ. (3.) Gradients obtained following continued exposure to the multivalued S^Δ situation show a fairly stable maximum at the S^D value. (4.) Although the gradients tend to fall off systematically on either side of the continuum as distance from S^D is increased, they decrease most rapidly on the S^Δ limb of the gradient.     

Stimulus-reinforcer and response-reinforcer relations in the control of conditioned appetitive headpoking (“goal tracking”) in rats

Experiment 1 studied the effect of several Pavlovian appetitive conditioning procedures on rats' headpoking into a food tray (goal tracking). The procedures included forward delay conditioning, CS-alone extinction, differential conditioning, and simultaneous compound conditioned inhibition training. In general, the headpoke behaved in all of these treatments much like a Pavlovian CR; however, one could also say that the headpoke behaved like an adventitiously reinforced operant for which the CS was an S^D. Experiment 2, therefore, used the differential-nondifferential technique (E. Gamzu & D. R. Williams, Science, 1971, 171, 923–925), and Experiment 3 used an omission technique (F. D. Sheffield, in W. F. Prokasy, Ed., Classical conditioning, New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1965; D. R. Williams & H. Williams, Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1969, 12, 511–520), to try to separate the role of stimulus-reinforcer and response-reinforcer relations in controlling the headpoke. These techniques proved inadequate. The results of Experiment 2 could be given either operant or Pavlovian interpretations. Those of Experiment 3 showed that headpoking is dominated by response-reinforcer, rather than by stimulus-reinforcer, relations when the two compete but forced no conclusion about which dominates when the two act together as in acquisition. Implications for pigeon autoshaping are discussed.     

Simultaneous and sequential Feature Negative discriminations: Elemental learning and occasion setting in human Pavlovian conditioning

Using a conditioned suppression task, we investigated simultaneous (XA−/A+) vs. sequential (X → A−/A+) Feature Negative (FN) discrimination learning in humans. We expected the simultaneous discrimination to result in X (or alternatively the XA configuration) becoming an inhibitor acting directly on the US, and the sequential discrimination in X becoming a negative occasion setter acting indirectly on the A-US link. After simultaneous FN training, X+ training completely abolished discriminative XA/A responding (Experiment 1), and X transferred inhibition to new targets B regardless of their training history (B+ or YB−/B+) (Experiment 2), suggesting X became a simple inhibitor. After sequential FN training, X showed the predicted selective transfer to a target B that also had been modulated (Y → B−/B+), not to a simple excitor (B+) (Experiment 4), but turning X into an excitor (X+) likewise disrupted discriminative X → A/A responding (Experiment 3). This suggests that X acquired a combination of modulatory and direct inhibitory properties, and that the joint contribution of both components is necessary for the suppression of the target-induced US activation.     

Across-reinforcement blocking effects in a mediational test of the CS's general signaling property

Rats received Pavlovian aversive (shock) conditioning in which white noise was established for independent groups as a CS+, CSo, or CS−. Then, in an easy (light-dark) T-maze discrimination, the CS was presented either immediately following choice (Locus 1) or at the food cup in the goal (Locus 3), contingent upon either a food-reinforced (right) or nonreinforced (wrong) response. When presented at Locus 3, the CS+ facilitated and the CS− retarded learning for CS/right subjects, with these effects being exactly reversed but somewhat less pronounced for CS/wrong subjects. However, when the CS was presented at Locus 1, the CS+ and CS− effects for both response contingencies were attenuated. These findings oppose an interpretation of the CS's function as a general cue or transformed signal for the presence or absence of the new appetitive reinforcer and argue instead for across-reinforcement blocking effects: By signaling in the presence of food reinforcement an outcome (safety or shock) which is consonant with or discrepant from the “good” outcome obtained, the CS− blocks (retards) and the CS+ counterblocks (enhances) the association of food reinforcement and the S^D; conversely, in the presence of nonreinforcement (a “bad” outcome), the CS− counterblocks and the CS+ blocks inhibitory conditioning to the S^Δ. As in Kamin's (1968) original research, such effects are attenuated when the CS is presented early in the compound, distal to the reinforcer.     

Scaling relative incentive value in anticipatory behavior

Papini and Pellegrini (Papini, M. R., & Pellegrini, S. Scaling relative incentive value in consummatory behavior. Learning and Motivation, in press) observed that, within limits, the level of consummatory responding of rats exposed to incentive downshifts in the concentration of sucrose solutions was similar when the ratio of test/training solutions was the same. For example, 32 → 4% and 16 → 2% downshifts (1:8 test/training ratios) lead to similar levels of consummatory behavior, despite differences in the absolute concentrations of the solutions involved in the downshift. This suggests the applicability of Weber’s law to spaced-trial, incentive-downshift situations. Experiment 1 extended these results to runway performance using food pellets as reward, and Experiment 2 to lever pressing performance, using an autoshaping procedure and sucrose solutions as rewards. The results conform well to the test/training ratio suggesting that Weber’s law is applicable to anticipatory behavior. A simple mathematical rule that can be easily incorporated into models based on linear operators describes the results of consummatory and anticipatory behavior experiments.     

Retrospective revaluation effects following serial compound training and target extinction

Using a conditioned suppression task, two experiments examined retrospective revaluation effects after serial compound training in a release from overshadowing design. In Experiment 1, serial X → A+ training produced suppression to target A, which was enhanced when preceded by feature X, whereas X by itself elicited no suppression. Subsequent A− presentations extinguished responding to A, but had no effect on either responding to X → A or X alone. However, the addition of A− trials did enhance the ability of feature X to elicit suppression to a novel target, B, suggesting retrospective revaluation of X’s properties. Experiment 2 showed that the enhanced transfer effect, observed in Experiment 1, was independent of the training history of the target (B− or Y → B+/B−). Together, these results suggest that feature X did not retrospectively acquire excitatory strength or occasion setting power, but rather a generalized ability to increase responding to any other cue.     

Opioid receptors mediate direct predictive fear learning: evidence from one-trial blocking

Pavlovian fear learning depends on predictive error, so that fear learning occurs when the actual outcome of a conditioning trial exceeds the expected outcome. Previous research has shown that opioid receptors, including μ-opioid receptors in the ventrolateral quadrant of the midbrain periaqueductal gray (vlPAG), mediate such predictive fear learning. Four experiments reported here used a within-subject one-trial blocking design to study whether opioid receptors mediate a direct or indirect action of predictive error on Pavlovian association formation. In Stage I, rats were trained to fear conditioned stimulus (CS) A by pairing it with shock. In Stage II, CSA and CSB were co-presented once and co-terminated with shock. Two novel stimuli, CSC and CSD, were also co-presented once and co-terminated with shock in Stage II. The results showed one-trial blocking of fear learning (Experiment 1) as well as one-trial unblocking of fear learning when Stage II training employed a higher intensity footshock than was used in Stage I (Experiment 2). Systemic administrations of the opioid receptor antagonist naloxone (Experiment 3) or intra-vlPAG administrations of the selective μ-opioid receptor antagonist CTAP (Experiment 4) prior to Stage II training prevented one-trial blocking. These results show that opioid receptors mediate the direct actions of predictive error on Pavlovian association formation.     

Antecedent reinforcement contingencies in the stimulus control of an auditory discrimination

In order to assess possible confounding of discriminative stimulus effects with those produced by the reinforcing stimulus, three groups of four rats each were trained for 45 hr on a variable-interval 1-min reinforcement program. Two groups were run on a multiple variable-interval extinction schedule in which the reinforcement stimulus (S^D) and the nonreinforcement stimulus (S^Δ) were two intensities of a 4-kHz (cps) tone separated by 40 or 10 db. The third group was run on a mixed schedule with a single intensity constantly present. The mixed-schedule animals showed no discrimination of the reinforcement program. Under the multiple schedule, the highest S^Δ rates were obtained after S^D intervals, regardless of the reinforcement availability in the S^D interval. These local rate variations in S^Δ were small in proportion to those produced by the S^D versus S^Δ intensities.     

Behavioral effects of pairing an SD with a decreasing limited-hold reinforcement schedule

Four pigeons were trained on a multiple reinforcement schedule consisting of two limited-hold schedules, one in which a discriminative stimulus (S^D) accompanied the periodic reinforcement contingency, and one in which the discriminative stimulus was omitted. The duration of the limited-hold in each component of the multiple schedule was reduced in parallel steps. It was shown that behavioral differences between the two schedules were attenuated by this manipulation of temporal parameters. When S^D was reduced in duration, three out of four pigeons responded with extremely high S^Δ rates, despite the regular pairing of S^Δ with the reinforcement contingency. These high rates qualitatively resembled the rapid rates emitted on the analogous no-S^D component.