Acquired equivalence between cues trained with a common antecedent.

Abstract

In Experiment 1, rats experienced 2 stimuli (A and N) each preceded by the same event (food) or by different events (food preceded 1 but not the other). N was then paired with shock, and the generalization of conditioned suppression to A was assessed. Generalization was more marked when A and N had been experienced along with a common antecedent. In Experiment 2, 3 stimuli (A, B, and N) were presented in initial training. For 1 group, A and N were preceded by food and B was not; for a 2nd group A alone was preceded by food. In each group, suppression generalized more readily from N to the stimulus that had received the same initial training as had been given to N. Experiment 3 found that generalization was not enhanced between stimuli when 1 had preceded food in initial training and 1 had followed it. These results demonstrate that stimuli that have shared a common antecedent will come to be treated as equivalent.

Learning about associatively activated stimulus representations: Implications for acquired equivalence and perceptual learning

“…Perhaps, however, in this experiment, the mediating representation was more likely to be of "no US" rather than simply of"no event," given that the reinforced training given to B in Stage 1 might have resulted in inhibitory learning to A and C. Further evidence relevant to the possibility ofmediation by way of inhibition comes from the experiment to be considered next. Hall et al (1993) reported a series of experiments intended to demonstrate what they referred to as backward equivalence. The design of one of their experiments is shown in Table 5c.…”

A Factor Affecting Stimulus Classes Formation in Concurrent Discriminations in Rats

“…For the first group, A and N were preceded by food and B was not; for a second group A alone was preceded by food. In each group, suppression generalized more readily from N to the stimulus that had received the same initial training as had been given to N. Nakagawa (1986Nakagawa ( , 1992, Zentall, Steirn, et al (1991), Zentall, Sherburne, et aI., (1992), Delius et al (1995), Dube et al (1993), and Hall et al (1993) suggest that rats and pigeons can form stimulus classes on a basis of reinforcement concordance. Nakagawa (1978Nakagawa ( , 1986Nakagawa ( , 1992 has asserted that, during the original discrimination training, rats learn a connection between a positive stimulus and an approach response as well as a connection between a negative stimulus and an avoidance response for each discrimination task.…”

“…This finding suggests that two or more stimuli that are concurrently discriminative for a given consequence (reinforcement or extinction) may constitute a class of functionally equivalent stimuli in rats. Hall, Ray, and Bonardi (1993) have demonstrated that stimuli shared a common antecedent would come to be treated as equivalent using conditioned suppression procedure. In Experiment 1, rats experienced two stimuli (A and N) each preceded by the same event (food) or by different events (food preceded one but not the other).…”

Cross-Modal Stimulus Class Formation in Rats

“…Overtraining retarded reversal in Group P, in which rats were given the same training as in Group W in original learning, but only the tactual task was reversed. After overtraining, Groups Wand S reversed more rapidly than Group P. After criterion training, Group P reversed more rapidly than Group W, which reversed more rapidly than Group S. These findings indicate that rats form stimulus classes (i.e., cross-modal stimulus classes) between the discriminative stimuli of two different sensory modalities with the same response assignment during overtraining in two concurrent discriminations as well as between the discriminative stimuli of the same sensory modality.There are many studies on stimulus classes formation in pigeons and rats using a conditioning procedure (Hall, Ray, & Bonardi, 1993), a common coding procedure (Edwards, Jagielo, Zentall, & Hogan, 1982; Urcuioli, Zentall, Jackson-Smith, & Steirn, 1989; Zentall, Urcuioli, Jagielo, & Jackson-Smith, 1989), a whole-partial reversal procedure (Delius, Ameling, Lea, & Staddon, 1995;Nakagawa, 1978Nakagawa, , 1986Nakagawa, , 1992Nakagawa, , 1998Vaughan, 1988; Zentall, Sherburne, Steirn, Randall, Roper, & Urcuioli, 1992; Zentall, Steirn, Sherburne, & Urcuioli, 1991), and serial reversal procedure (Dube, Callahan, & Mcllvane, 1993;Vaughan, 1988). They make it clear that pigeons and rats have an ability to form stimulus classes or stimulus-stimulus associations between the discriminative stimuli of the same sensory modality, which are not only homogeneous associations (Le., shape-shape or color-color) but also heterogeneous Requests for reprints should be sent to Esho Nakagawa,…”