Rats are sensitive to ambiguity

In the present study, we investigated response decisions made under conditions of incomplete information in rats. In Experiment 1, rats were trained on either a positive patterning (PP; A-, B-, AB+) or a negative patterning (NP; A+, B+, AB-) instrumental lever-press discrimination. Subjects that had learned an NP discrimination responded less to Cue A when Cue B was covered at test. The cover did not, however, affect test responses to Cue A in the PP condition. In Experiment 2, rats received concurrent training on both PP and NP discriminations. After concurrent training, responses to Cue A were different with B covered versus uncovered for both NP and PP discriminations. We discuss possible accounts for why exposure to a nonlinearly soluble discrimination (NP) may have affected sensitivity to cue ambiguity produced by the cover. These results have interesting implications for representational processes engaged in problem solving.     

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.     

Comparing positive and negative patterning in human learning

In human causal learning, positive patterning (PP) and negative patterning (NP) discriminations are often acquired at roughly the same rate, whereas PP is learned faster than NP in most experiments with nonhuman animals. One likely reason for this discrepancy is that most causal learning scenarios encourage participants to treat the presentation and omission of the relevant outcome as two events of comparable significance and likelihood. To investigate this, the current experiments compared PP and NP using a predictive learning paradigm based on a mock gambling task. In Experiment 1, one outcome (winning) was made more salient by being less frequent than the alternative outcome (losing). Under these circumstances, PP was learned faster than NP. In Experiment 2, subjects learned two PP and two NP discriminations, one involved win versus no change outcomes, the other involved lose versus no change outcomes. The subjects learned PP faster than NP, but only when discriminating win from no change. We argue that a difference in difficulty between PP and NP relies on a difference in the salience of the outcomes, consistent with the predictions of a relatively simple model of associative learning.     

Comparing positive and negative patterning in human learning

In human causal learning, positive patterning (PP) and negative patterning (NP) discriminations are often acquired at roughly the same rate, whereas PP is learned faster than NP in most experiments with nonhuman animals. One likely reason for this discrepancy is that most causal learning scenarios encourage participants to treat the presentation and omission of the relevant outcome as two events of comparable significance and likelihood. To investigate this, the current experiments compared PP and NP using a predictive learning paradigm based on a mock gambling task. In Experiment 1, one outcome (winning) was made more salient by being less frequent than the alternative outcome (losing). Under these circumstances, PP was learned faster than NP. In Experiment 2, subjects learned two PP and two NP discriminations, one involved win versus no change outcomes, the other involved lose versus no change outcomes. The subjects learned PP faster than NP, but only when discriminating win from no change. We argue that a difference in difficulty between PP and NP relies on a difference in the salience of the outcomes, consistent with the predictions of a relatively simple model of associative learning.     

A positive patterning advantage with complex but not simple patterning: A cue constellation approach

Determinants of a positive patterning advantage (that is, an advantage for positive patterning over negative patterning) in human causal reasoning were examined in an experiment that compared simple patterning discriminations (A, B vs. AB) to complex patterning discriminations (AB, BC, AC vs. ABC). As predicted by a cue constellation analysis of complex discriminations, a positive patterning advantage was found with complex patterning but not with simple patterning discriminations. This result may explain why some recent studies have found a positive patterning advantage where earlier studies had failed to find one. The interaction of patterning complexity with the positive patterning advantage appears to pose problems for rule-based accounts of patterning. The results support the view that associative theories of human causal reasoning are more easily distinguished from rule-based approaches when applied to conditions that make simple rules difficult to identify or implement.     

A modified version of the unique cue theory accounts for olfactory compound processing in honeybees

We investigated the capability of honeybees to discriminate between single odorants, binary olfactory mixtures, and ternary olfactory mixtures in olfactory conditioning of the proboscis extension reflex. In Experiment 1, three single odorants (A+, B+, and C+) and three binary mixtures of these odors (AB+, AC+, and BC+) were reinforced while the ternary compound, consisting of all three odors (ABC-), was nonreinforced. In Experiment 2, only one single odorant (A+) and one binary olfactory compound (BC+) were reinforced while the ternary compound (ABC-) consisting of the single odor and the binary compound was nonreinforced. We studied whether bees can solve these problems and whether the course of differentiation can be predicted by the unique cue theory, a modified unique cue theory, or Pearce's configural theory. Honeybees were not able to differentiate reinforced from nonreinforced stimuli in Experiment 1. However, summation to ABC observed at the beginning of training contradicts the predictions of Pearce's configural theory. In Experiment 2, differentiation between the single odorant A and the ternary compound developed more easily than between the binary compound BC and ABC. This pattern of differentiation is in line with a modified unique cue theory and Pearce's configural theory. Summation to ABC at the beginning of training, however, again was at odds with Pearce's configural theory. Thus, olfactory compound processing in honeybees can best be explained by a modified unique cue theory.     

Solving XOR

Three experiments examined the way in which exclusive-or (XOR) problems are solved by rats. All rats first received food-rewarded positive and negative patterning problems with two stimulus sets: either A+, B+, AB- and C-, D-, CD+, or A-, B-, AB + and C+, D +, and CD-. Subsequently, rats received revaluation trials in which A was paired with shock and C was not, prior to generalization test trials with B, D, AB, and CD (Experiments 1 & 2); or received A-->shock trials prior to tests with B and CD (Experiment 3). There was greater generalized fear to B than to either D (Experiments 1 & 2) or AB (Experiment 2) and CD (Experiments 2 & 3). These results are inconsistent with configural, connectionist models, but are consistent with an alternative connectionist model that can represent the logical structure of XOR problems.     

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.     

The effect of similarity between elemental stimuli and compounds in olfactory patterning discriminations

We studied the ability of honeybees to discriminate between single odorants and binary olfactory mixtures. We analyzed the effect of the number of common elements between these two stimulus classes on olfactory discrimination. We used olfactory conditioning of the honeybees' proboscis extension reflex (PER), a paradigm in which odors can be associated with a reinforcement of sucrose solution. Bees were asked to discriminate reinforced from nonreinforced olfactory stimuli. They were trained with two elemental odors (A and B) versus a binary olfactory mixture. The mixture was either AB (group 2CE, two common elements), AC (group 1CE, one common element A), or CD (group 0CE, no common element). Three groups followed a positive patterning schedule (mixture reinforced and elements nonreinforced: groups 2CE+, 1CE+, and 0CE+) and three other groups a negative patterning schedule (mixture nonreinforced and elements reinforced: groups 2CE-, 1CE-, and 0CE-). We showed that a reduction of similarity (number of common elements) between elemental odors and compounds enhanced the ability to discriminate elements from compounds and that the kind of compound processing used by the bees supports theories that assume nonelemental compound processing (i.e., that exclude the mere summation of the elemental associative strengths upon compound presentation).     

Positive and negative patterning in human causal learning

Investigations of patterning discriminations by nonhuman animals have generally found that positive patterning is easier to learn than negative patterning. Studies of patterning discriminations in human causal learning tasks have failed to document any differences between positive and negative patterning. In the present study, human participants predicted an outcome on trials involving either a compound cue or its elements. Positive and negative patterning problems were successfully solved in a within-subjects design; negative patterning problems proved to be more difficult when an additional, 50% contingent cue was included (Experiment 2), but not when it was excluded (Experiment 1). Possible reasons for these results are discussed. The discussion concludes with an analysis of exemplar models (e.g., Pearce, 1994) of human causal learning and considers the conditions under which these models do and do not anticipate our results.     

Negative patterning is easier than a biconditional discrimination

Two groups of rats were trained for 50 days on different discriminations in a magazine approach paradigm. One group was trained with a negative patterning schedule and a positive patterning schedule concurrently: they received intermixed trials of A+, B+, AB-, C-, D-, CD+ (A, B, C, and D are four distinct stimuli; the plus sign denotes reinforcement with food, and the minus sign denotes nonreinforcement). The second group of rats was trained with the same four stimuli arranged as compounds and reinforced according to the biconditional schedule AB+, CD+, AC-, and BD-. The first group learned the positive patterning schedule much more quickly than the negative patterning schedule, but they learned the negative patterning schedule more effectively than the second group learned the biconditional schedule. The authors discuss the implications of these findings for models of stimulus representation.     

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.     

Comparing elemental and configural associative theories in human causal learning: a case for attention

In two causal learning experiments with human participants, the authors compared various associative theories that assumed either elemental (unique cue, modified unique cue, replaced elements model, and Harris' model) or configural processing of stimuli (Pearce's theory and a modification of it). The authors used modified patterning problems initially suggested by Redhead and Pearce (1995). Predictions for all theories were generated by computer simulations. Both configural theories and the unique cue approach failed to account for the observations. The replaced elements model was able to account for part of the data, but only if the replacement parameters could vary across discrimination problems. The Harris model and the modified unique cue approach, assuming that the salience of stimuli decreases with an increasing number of stimuli in a compound, successfully accounted for all of our data. This success implies that attentional factors should be explicitly taken into account in associative learning theory.     

Prior experience can influence whether the whole is different from the sum of its parts

In two conditioning experiments with humans, we found that participants’ prior experience exerted considerable influence on later learning of configural discrimination problems. Prior experience was manipulated by pre-training participants before the main acquisition stage. They either received a discrimination problem that encouraged an elemental solution (A+, B−, AB+, CD− in Experiment 1 and A+, AB+, C−, CB− in Experiment 2) or one that required a configural solution (AB+, BC−, CD+, DA− in Experiment 1 and A−, AB+, C+, CB− in Experiment 2). Then, all participants were shown a discrimination that required a configural solution (E+, F+, EF− in Experiment 1 and DE+, EF−, FG+, GD− in Experiment 2). In both experiments, participants who had received elemental pre-training were impaired on the later configural problem compared to participants who had received configural pre-training. The results suggest that organisms can flexibly process stimuli elementally or configurally.     

Analysis of the unique cue in configural discriminations

Four experiments used an autoshaping procedure with pigeons to investigate the basis of configural discriminations. The elements of both a negative patterning (A+, B+, AB-) and a conditional discrimination (AC+, BD+, AD-, BC-) were paired, in a second-order procedure with two new key lights, X and Y. Responding was then tested to X and Y presented in compound with each other and with A and B. The pattern of responding to compounds containing X and Y was like the pattern of responding to compounds containing their associates, A and B. This suggests that A and B can be replaced by their associates without disrupting responding to their compounds. Because X and Y are physically different from A and B, this in turn suggests that any unique cue controlling responding to their compounds does not depend on the physical presence of the component stimuli. Instead the unique stimulus appears to arise from the joint activation of memory representations.     

Summation: Further assessment of a configural theory

Rats received Pavlovian conditioning in which food was signalled by a visual stimulus, A+, an auditory stimulus, B+, and a compound composed of different visual and auditory stimuli, CD+. Test trials were then given with the compound AB. Experiments 1 and 2A revealed stronger responding during AB than during CD. In Experiment 2B, there was no evidence of a summation of responding during AB when A+ B+ training was conducted in the absence of CD+ trials. A further failure to observe abnormally strong responding during ABwas found in Experiment 3 for which the training trials with A+ B+ CD+ were accompanied by trials in which C and D were separately paired with food. The results are explained in terms of a configural theory of conditioning, which assumes that responding during a compound is determined by generalization from its components, as well as from other compounds to which it is similar.     

Second-order conditioning in human predictive judgements when there is little time to think

Associative accounts uniquely predict that second-order conditioning might be observed in human predictive judgements. Such an effect was found for cue X in two experiments in which participants were required to predict the outcomes of a series of training trials that included P + and PX-, but only when training was paced by requiring participants to make a prediction within 3 s on each trial. In Experiment 1 training on P + ended before training was given on PX - . In Experiment 2 trials with P+, PX-, T + and other cues were intermixed. In the unpaced group inhibitory learning was revealed by a summation test, TX versus TM, where M was a control stimulus. These results suggest either that pacing interferes with learning successive associations more than with learning simultaneous associations or that lack of time to think interferes with inferential processes required for this type of inhibitory learning.     

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.     

Acquisition of a unique cue in positive and negative patterning?

Forty college students received a classical differential conditioning procedure involving both positive and negative patterning, each of these being associated with a different pair of stimuli. In positive patterning, elemental stimuli, A and B, were presented without an unconditioned stimulus while their compound, AB, was paired with electric shock. In negative patterning, elemental stimuli, C and D, were paired with shock while their compound, CD, remained unpaired. Thirty of these subjects then received a negative patterning transfer test on new stimuli, while ten subjects received a positive patterning transfer test. First interval response (FIR) and second interval response (SIR) were measured. During initial acquisition, positive patterning occurred in both dependent measures, but negative patterning was present only in the SIR. The transfer tests showed almost significant transfer of positive patterning in FIR and SIR. Negative patterning showed significant transfer neither in FIR nor SIR. It was concluded that, although elementary models of conditioning can explain positive patterning on the basis of summation of excitation from the elements to the compound, the occurrence of negative patterning in the SIR and the almost significant transfer of positive patterning in FIR and SIR appear to require the additional assumption of a unique cue.     

Past experience influences the processing of stimulus compounds in human Pavlovian conditioning

In two human skin conductance conditioning experiments we investigated whether processing of stimulus compounds can be influenced by past experience. Participants were either pre-trained with a discrimination problem that could be solved elementally (A+, B−, AB+, C− in Experiment 1 and A+, AB+, C−, CB− in Experiment 2) or one that required a configural solution (AB+, BC−, CD+, DA− in Experiment 1 and A−, AB+, C+, CB− in Experiment 2). After pre-training, participants were shown an EX+, FX− discrimination. Subsequently, responding to individual components (E and F) was tested. After elemental pre-training, participants showed larger responses to the component from the previously reinforced compound (E) than to the component from the nonreinforced compound (F) whereas no such difference was found after configural pre-training. This means that the kind of pre-training influenced whether the later discrimination problem was processed elementally or configurally. The results indicate that organisms can flexibly process stimulus compounds in different ways.