Blocking and pseudoblocking: the reply of Rattus norvegicus to Apis mellifera

Blaser, Couvillon, and Bitterman (2006) presented data obtained with honeybees that in principle challenged all traditional interpretations of blocking. They administered A + followed by either A + or + alone (where + indicates an unconditioned stimulus) and then tested on X. They observed less responding to X when they administered A + than when + alone was administered, a phenomenon they called "pseudoblocking". Here we examined pseudoblocking in a rat fear-conditioning preparation. In Experiment 1, using a control procedure that was similar to our usual blocking control, we obtained conventional blocking but failed to observe pseudoblocking in our analogue to Blaser et al.'s procedure. In Experiment 2, we used Blaser et al.'s control procedure and again failed to observe the pseudoblocking effect with rats when we used the experimental context as an analogue to the honeybee feeder used by Blaser et al. After reviewing their protocol and previously published studies from their laboratory, we hypothesized that the feeder that they treated as a training context probably served as a punctate cue. We also tested this possibility in Experiment 2, using a punctate cue as a surrogate feeder, and were now able to reproduce their pseudoblocking phenomena. Our results are consistent with a simple overshadowing account of pseudoblocking, within the framework of existing theories of associative learning, which is not applicable to the conventional blocking paradigm. Thus, blocking remains a real phenomenon that must be addressed by models of associative learning.     

The hide-and-seek of retrospective revaluation: recovery from blocking is context dependent in human causal learning

In a typical blocking procedure, pairings of a compound consisting of 2 stimuli, A and X, with the outcome are preceded by pairings of only A with the outcome (i.e., A+ then AX+). This procedure is known to diminish responding to the target cue (X) relative to a control group that does not receive the preceding training with blocking cue A. We report 2 experiments that investigated the effect of extinguishing a blocking cue on responding to the target cue in a human causal learning paradigm (i.e., A+ and AX+ training followed by A- training). The results indicate that extinguishing a blocking cue increases conditioned responding to the target cue. Moreover, this increase appears to be context dependent, such that increased responding to the target is limited to the context in which extinction of the blocking cue took place. We discuss these findings in the light of associative and propositional learning theories.     

People want to see information that will help them make valid inferences in human causal learning

According to higher order reasoning accounts of human causal learning (e.g., Lovibond, Been, Mitchell, Bouton, and Frohardt, 2003; Waldmann and Walker, 2005) ceiling effects in forward blocking (i.e., smaller blocking effects when the outcome occurs with a maximal intensity on A+ and AX+ trials) are due to the fact that people are uncertain about the causal status of a blocked cue X in a forward blocking design when the outcome is always fully present on A+ and AX+ trials. This should not be the case for a reduced overshadowing cue Y (B- trials followed by BY+ trials). We tested this hypothesis by asking participants which additional information they preferred to see after seeing all learning trials. Results showed (1) that all participants preferred to see the effect of the blocked cue X over seeing the effect of the reduced overshadowing cue Y (Experiment 1), and (2) that more participants preferred to see the blocked cue X on its own when the outcome on A+ and AX+ trials was fully present than when the outcome on those trials had a submaximalintensity (Experiment 2).     

Blocking of conditioning of tentacle lowering in the snail (Helix aspersa)

Experiment 1 established the effectiveness of an appetitive conditioning of odours procedure with snails (Helix aspersa) that was subsequently used for the study of blocking. In this important phenomenon, the conditioning of a CS1 (where CS is the conditioned stimulus) prior to conditioning of a compound, CS1CS2, blocked the conditioning to the CS2. Experiments 2a, 2b, and 2c demonstrated this associative effect using three different experimental controls. Experiments 3a and 3b replicated the blocking effect and allowed us to reject an explanation of blocking based on generalized effects of several treatments of diverse stimuli in blocking and control groups (the pseudoblocking effect). The implications of these results for the study of invertebrate cognition by means of conditioning techniques are discussed.     

Evidence that a transient but cognitively demanding process underlies forward blocking

Blocking is a learning phenomenon in which prior experience inhibits learning about novel cues. Though the phenomenon itself has been well documented, the details of blocking-related processes still remain contentious. Two experiments investigated whether participants were engaged in demanding cognitive processing during different portions of a standard blocking paradigm. Participants in Experiment 1 engaged in a simple secondary task while completing a standard blocking procedure. Results showed that performance on the secondary task was briefly diminished early in the second phase of the blocking paradigm, when the novel cue is first paired with the pretrained cue. Participants in Experiment 2 performed a difficult cognitive load task during either the early or the late portions of the second phase of blocking. The blocking effect was eliminated when learners were under load early in the second phase, but not when learners were under load late in the second phase. These results suggest that blocking relies on a cognitively demanding process with a distinct time course. Computational simulations illustrate how a model that includes top-down (i.e., cognitively demanding) attentional modulation can reproduce the observed behaviour. This suggests that purely associative processes are not sufficient to explain the observed behaviour. Implications for current accounts of blocking are discussed.     

Blocking and unblocking of conditioned analgesia

Two experiments with rat subjects assessed the blocking phenomenon using inhibition of responding to painful thermal stimulation as an index of conditioned analgesia established through conditioned stimulus (CS)-shock pairings. In Experiment 1, a group of rats receiving the standard blocking procedure ($\text{A+}\text{AB+}$) showed shorter response latencies during a hot plate test of pain sensitivity in the presence of the added CS than groups of rats receiving various blocking control procedures. Experiment 2 replicated the blocking outcome of Experiment 1 and also demonstrated that the addition of a second shock unconditioned stimulus (US) during the compound conditioning phase attenuated the blocking effect; i.e., unblocking was observed. However, the deletion of a second shock US during compound conditioning in a group that had received two shocks on each trial in the first phase of the experiment failed to result in unblocking. These data extend the associative account of conditioned analgesia to situations involving stimulus selection and the implications for the analysis of aversive learning are discussed.     

Recovery from blocking between outcomes

Contemporary associative learning research largely focuses on cue competition phenomena that occur when 2 cues are paired with a common outcome. Little research has been conducted to investigate similar phenomena occurring when a single cue is trained with 2 outcomes. Three conditioned lick suppression experiments with rats assessed whether treatments known to alleviate blocking between cues would also attenuate blocking between outcomes. In Experiment 1, conditioned responding recovered from blocking between outcomes when a long retention interval was interposed between training and testing. Experiment 2 obtained recovery from blocking between outcomes when the blocking outcome was extinguished after the blocking treatment. In Experiment 3, a recovery from blocking between outcomes occurred when a reminder stimulus was presented in a novel context prior to testing. Collectively, these studies demonstrate that blocking of outcomes, like blocking of cues, appears to be caused by a deficit in the expression of an acquired association.     

知道感（FOK）和不知道感（FOnK）的双向实验分离

为了实现FOK（feeling-of-knowing）和FonK（feeling-of-not-knowing）的双向分离,实验一采用高频词或者低频词为线索项目,检验FOK和FOnK的预测准确性。结果发现,在低频线索条件下FOK的预测准确性表现出高于FOnK的预测准确性的趋势,而在高频线索条件下则正好相反,但上述两组差异并未在统计学上达到显著的程度。实验二采用词－非词对和相关词对两种实验条件,在证明相关词对条件可以促进FOK并降低FOnK的同时,观察到词－非词条件可以促进FOnK并降低FOK,从而在较为严格的意义上证明了FOK和FOnK是两个不同的维度的量。上述结果为知道感的“双过程假设”提供了进一步的实验证据     

Counterconditioning of an overshadowed cue attenuates overshadowing

In 3 Pavlovian conditioned lick-suppression experiments, rats received overshadowing treatment with a footshock unconditioned stimulus such that Conditioned Stimulus (CS) A overshadowed CS X. Subjects that subsequently received CS X paired with an established signal for saccharin (CS B) exhibited less overshadowing of the X-footshock association than subjects that did not receive the X-B pairings (Experiment 1). Experiment 2 replicated this effect and controlled for some additional alternative accounts of the phenomenon. In Experiment 3, this recovery from overshadowing produced by counterconditioning CS X was attenuated if CS B was massively extinguished prior to counterconditioning. These results are more compatible with models of cue competition that emphasize differences in the expression of associations than those that emphasize differences in associative acquisition.     

Re-examining the contribution of visuospatial working memory to inhibition of return

Castel and colleagues (Percept Psychophys 65(6):970–981, 2003) proposed that visuospatial working memory is needed to retain and update the irrelevant but attended location in an inhibition of return (IOR) procedure. In a series of three experiments, we re-examined this hypothesis by loading visuospatial working memory and manipulating the timing of encoding. When the visuospatial memory items were presented right after the cue, as in Castel et al. (Percept Psychophys 65(6):970–981, 2003), we replicated the lack of IOR in the dual-task condition (Experiment 1). However, when we presented the visuospatial memory items before the spatial cue, to control for retroactive interference in encoding, we found robust IOR effects (Experiment 2); the effect remained strong even when participants were prevented from using verbal labels to rehearse the memory material (Experiment 3). We conclude that IOR does not seem to depend on retaining the position of the irrelevant cue in visuospatial working memory.     

The fate of redundant cues during blocking and a simple discrimination

In each of three experiments animals received blocking, A+ AX+, in which food was always presented after one stimulus, A, that was occasionally accompanied by another stimulus, X. They also received a simple discrimination, AX+ BX-, in which the presence and absence of food was signaled by two compounds that contained one unique cue, A or B, and one common cue, X. In each of these designs, X can be said to be redundant relative to A as a signal for food. Test trials at the end of training revealed that responding during X was stronger after blocking than after the simple discrimination. These results contradict predictions from theories of learning that assume changes in associative strength of a stimulus are determined by a global error term based on the outcome predicted by all the stimuli that are present for a conditioning trial. The results are interpreted, instead, by assuming either that animals store a memory of every trial to which they have been exposed, or that learning is governed by an error term based on the significance of individual stimuli.     

Contrasting reduced overshadowing and blocking

Preexposure of a cue without an outcome (X-) prior to compound pairings with the outcome (XZ-->O) can reduce overshadowing of a target cue (Z). Moreover, pairing a cue with an outcome (X-->O) before compound training can enhance its ability to compete with another cue (i.e., blocking). Four experiments were conducted in a conditioned bar-press suppression preparation with rats to determine whether spacing of the X- or X-->O trials would differentially affect reduced overshadowing and blocking. Experiment 1a showed that reduced overshadowing was larger with massed trials than with spaced trials. Experiment 1b found that blocking was larger with spaced trials than with massed trials. Experiments 2a and 2b indicated that these effects of trial spacing were both mediated by the associative status of the context at test. The results are interpreted in the framework of contemporary learning theories.     

Cue competition effects in human causal learning

Five experiments involving human causal learning were conducted to compare the cue competition effects known as blocking and unovershadowing, in proactive and retroactive instantiations. Experiment 1 demonstrated reliable proactive blocking and unovershadowing but only retroactive unovershadowing. Experiment 2 replicated the same pattern and showed that the retroactive unovershadowing that was observed was interfered with by a secondary memory task that had no demonstrable effect on either proactive unovershadowing or blocking. Experiments 3a, 3b, and 3c demonstrated that retroactive unovershadowing was accompanied by an inflated memory effect not accompanying proactive unovershadowing. The differential pattern of proactive versus retroactive cue competition effects is discussed in relationship to amenable associative and inferential processing possibilities.     

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.     

Taboo words: The effect of emotion on memory for peripheral information

In three experiments, we examined memory for peripheral information that occurred in the same context as emotion-inducing information. In the first two experiments, participants studied either a sentence (Experiment 1) or a pair of words (Experiments 2A—2C) containing a neutral peripheral word, as well as a neutral, negative-valence, or taboo word, to induce an emotional response. At retrieval, the participants were asked to recall the neutral peripheral word from a sentence fragment or emotion-inducing word cue. In Experiment 3, we presented word pairs at encoding and tested memory with associative recognition. In all three experiments, memory for peripheral words was enhanced when it was encoded in the presence of emotionally arousing taboo words but not when it was encoded in the presence of words that were only negative in valence. These data are consistent with priority-binding theory (MacKay et al., 2004) and inconsistent with the attention-narrowing hypothesis (Easterbrook, 1959), as well as with object-based binding theory (Mather, 2007).     

An extended comparator hypothesis account of superconditioning

Three conditioned taste aversion experiments with rats investigated superconditioning. In each experiment, alternate exposures of 2 flavor compounds with a common element (i.e., AB/AS) were administered to establish an inhibitory relationship between the 2 unique elements, B and S, and prior to testing, S was paired with lithium chloride (LiCl). In Experiment 1, pairings of a neutral cue (X) with S in compound with B after the AB/AS exposures resulted in superconditioning between X and S. Extinction of the common element (A) just before the S-LiCl pairing attenuated both the inhibitory relationship between B and S (Experiment 2) and superconditioning between X and S (Experiment 3). These observations suggest that superconditioning consists of enhanced performance rather than enhanced associative acquisition.     

Relaxing decision criteria does not improve recognition memory in amnesic patients

An important question about the organization of memory is whether information available in non-declarative memory can contribute to performance on tasks of declarative memory. Dorfman, Kihlstrom, Cork, and Misiaszek (1995) described a circumstance in which the phenomenon of priming might benefit recognition memory performance. They reported that patients receiving electroconvulsive therapy improved their recognition performance when they were encouraged to relax their criteria for endorsing test items as familiar. It was suggested that priming improved recognition by making information available about the familiarity of test items. In three experiments, we sought unsuccessfully to reproduce this phenomenon in amnesic patients. In Experiment 3, we reproduced the methods and procedure used by Dorfman et al. but still found no evidence for improved recognition memory following the manipulation of decision criteria. Although negative findings have their own limitations, our findings suggest that the phenomenon reported by Dorfman et al. does not generalize well. Our results agree with several recent findings that suggest that priming is independent of recognition memory and does not contribute to recognition memory scores.     

The special status of actions in causal reasoning in rats

A. P. Blaisdell, K. Sawa, K. J. Leising, and M. R. Waldmann (2006) reported evidence for causal reasoning in rats. After learning through Pavlovian observation that Event A (a light) was a common cause of Events X (an auditory stimulus) and F (food), rats predicted F in the test phase when they observed Event X as a cue but not when they generated X by a lever press. Whereas associative accounts predict associations between X and F regardless of whether X is observed or generated by an action, causal-model theory predicts that the intervention at test should lead to discounting of A, the regular cause of X. The authors report further tests of causal-model theory. One key prediction is that full discounting should be observed only when the alternative cause is viewed as deterministic and independent of other events, 2 hallmark features of actions but not necessarily of arbitrary events. Consequently, the authors observed discounting with only interventions but not other observable events (Experiments 1 and 2). Moreover, rats were capable of flexibly switching between observational and interventional predictions (Experiment 3). Finally, discounting occurred on the very first test trial (Meta-Analysis). These results confirm causal-model theory but refute associative accounts.     

Blocking and backward blocking involve learned inattention

Four experiments examine blocking of associative learning by human participants in a disease diagnosis procedure. The results indicate that after a cue is blocked, subsequent learning about the cue is attenuated. This attenuated learning after blocking is obtained for both standard blocking and for backward blocking. Attenuated learning after blocking cannot be accounted for by theories such as the Rescorla-Wagner model that rely on lack of learning about a redundant cue, nor can it be accounted for by extensions of the Rescorla-Wagner model designed to address backward blocking that encode absent cues with negative values. The results are predicted by the hypothesis that people learn not to attend to the blocked cue.     

Blocking in Rabbit Eyeblink Conditioning Is Not Due to Learned Inattention: Indirect Support for an Error Correction Mechanism of Blocking

Blocking is a classical conditioning task in which prior training to one cue such as a tone reduces learning about a second cue such as a light, when subsequently trained as a tone-light compound. Blocking has been theorized to come about through a US-modulated error correction mechanism by Rescorla & Wagner (1972) as well as through a mechanism of learned inattention as theorized by Mackintosh (1973). In the case of eyeblink conditioning, an error correction mechanism has been hypothesized to take place in the cerebellum while some form of inattention has been hypothesized to take place in the hippocampal region. The hypothesis we are testing is whether the mechanism of learned inattention is involved in blocking in rabbit eyeblink conditioning. If blocking in eyeblink conditioning is produced by a mechanism of learned inattention, then training to a previously blocked cue should be slower than training to that cue in a na?ve animal. Rabbits that had received tone training followed by tone-light training exhibited blocking. Rabbits that had been previously blocked to the light acquired conditioned responses to the light at the same rate as naive rabbits. This finding failed to support the hypothesis that blocking in rabbit eyeblink conditioning is due to learned inattention, but does support the Rescorla-Wagner mechanism of error correction. The present finding along with previous work on error correction mechanism in the cerebellar-brainstem circuit (Kim et al., 1998) lend support to the theory that blocking, at least in rabbit eyeblink conditioning, seems to be due to an error correction mechanism rather than a learned inattention mechanism.