“…When alcohol-induced variability increases reinforcing consequences, the behavior of drinking alcohol becomes an early member of a reinforced response chain. Furthermore, the alcohol drug state may then become a discriminative stimulus for this increased reinforcement (Goodwin, Powell, Bremer, Hoine, & Stern, 1969). Of course other mechanisms, including associative conditioning, physiological addiction, tolerance, and genetic differences, are important (Brady, 1988;Masur & Lodder Martins dos Santos, 1988;Staiger & White, 1988;Vuchinich & Tucker, 1988).…”
Response sequences emitted by five Long-Evans rats were reinforced under a two-component multiple schedule. In the REPEAT component, food pellets were contingent upon completion of a left-left-right-right (LLRR) sequence on two levers. In the VARY component, pellets were contingent upon variable sequences (i.e., a sequence was reinforced only if it differed from each of the previous five sequences). The rats learned to emit LLRR sequences in the REPEAT component and variable sequences in VARY. Intraperitoneal injections of ethanol (1.25, 1.75, and 2.25 g/kg) significantly increased sequence variability in REPEAT, thereby lowering reinforcement probability, but had little effect on sequence variability in the VARY component. These results extend previous findings that alcohol impairs the performance of reinforced repetitions but not of reinforced variations in response sequences.
“…When alcohol-induced variability increases reinforcing consequences, the behavior of drinking alcohol becomes an early member of a reinforced response chain. Furthermore, the alcohol drug state may then become a discriminative stimulus for this increased reinforcement (Goodwin, Powell, Bremer, Hoine, & Stern, 1969). Of course other mechanisms, including associative conditioning, physiological addiction, tolerance, and genetic differences, are important (Brady, 1988;Masur & Lodder Martins dos Santos, 1988;Staiger & White, 1988;Vuchinich & Tucker, 1988).…”
Response sequences emitted by five Long-Evans rats were reinforced under a two-component multiple schedule. In the REPEAT component, food pellets were contingent upon completion of a left-left-right-right (LLRR) sequence on two levers. In the VARY component, pellets were contingent upon variable sequences (i.e., a sequence was reinforced only if it differed from each of the previous five sequences). The rats learned to emit LLRR sequences in the REPEAT component and variable sequences in VARY. Intraperitoneal injections of ethanol (1.25, 1.75, and 2.25 g/kg) significantly increased sequence variability in REPEAT, thereby lowering reinforcement probability, but had little effect on sequence variability in the VARY component. These results extend previous findings that alcohol impairs the performance of reinforced repetitions but not of reinforced variations in response sequences.
“…On the next day, they were tested either in the same or opposite state. Memory performance was better when the internal states were similar during both phases of the experiments (Goodwin, Powell, Bremer, Hoine, & Stern, 1969; also see Overton, 1964, for a demonstration with nonhuman animals). Similar effects with changes in physical contexts (e.g., outside a swimming pool or under water; Godden & Baddeley, 1975) have also been reported in humans.…”
Section: Two Roles Of the Context In Pavlovian Fear Conditioningmentioning
At both empirical and theoretical levels, multiple functional roles of contextual information upon memory performance have been proposed without a clear dissociation of these roles. Some theories have assumed that contexts are functionally similar to cues, whereas other views emphasize the retrieval facilitating properties of contextual information. In Experiment 1, we observed that one critical parameter, the spacing of trials, could determine whether the context would function as a cue or as a retrieval cue for memories trained in different phases. Experiments 2 and 3 doubly dissociated these functions by selectively disrupting one role but not the other, and vice versa. Overall, these observations identify one determinant of different functions of contextual information and pose a major challenge to theories of learning that assume exclusively one or the other function of the context. Moreover, these data emphasize the importance of parametric variations on behavioral control, which has critical implications for studies designed to understand the role of the hippocampus in processing of contextual attributes.
“…During learning it has been argued that, in addition to the to‐be‐remembered items, participants encode the learning context; reinstatement of that context at recall facilitates retrieval (e.g. Godden & Baddeley, 1975; Goodwin, Powell, Bremer, Hoine, & Stern, 1969; Miles & Hardman, 1998). In the Tucha et al (2004) study, disparate chewing contexts between learning and recall may have acted to inhibit memorial facilitation.…”
Two experiments independently investigated the basis of the chewing-gum induced context-dependent memory effect (Baker et al, 2004). At learning and/or recall participants either chewed flavourless gum (Experiment 1) or received mint-flavoured strips (Experiment 2). No context dependent memory effect was found with either flavourless gum or mint-flavoured strips, indicating that independently the contexts were insufficiently salient to induce the effect. This is found despite participants' subjective ratings indicating a perceived change in state following administration of flavourless gum or mint-flavoured strips. Additionally, some preliminary evidence for a non-additive facilitative effect of receiving gum or flavour at either learning and/or recall is reported. The findings raise further concerns regarding the robustness of the previously reported context-dependent memory effect with chewing gum.3
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.