Assessing the blocking of occasion setting

Alfaro, Felipe; Mallea, Jorge; Laborda, Mario A.; Cañete, Aracelli; Míguez, Gonzalo

doi:10.1016/j.beproc.2018.02.008

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…It is less clear what would happen in non-deterministic occasion setting or in which there are multiple occasion setters present across trials. We presume the search for additional occasion setters would not occur while a trained, deterministic occasion setter is present (i.e., the occasion setter would block learning to other potential occasion setters) [ 36 , 37 ]. However, for example, if a 1 st -order positive occasion setter’s presence perfectly signals that the CS will predict the US, but the CS still receives some mixed reinforcement when presented alone, we presume that the individual will continue searching for other occasion setters that will disambiguate the CS alone (perhaps there is an additional 1 st -order positive or negative occasion setter the individual has not found yet).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ambiguity drives higher-order Pavlovian learning

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the natural world, stimulus-outcome associations are often ambiguous, and most associations are highly complex and situation-dependent. Learning to disambiguate these complex associations to identify which specific outcomes will occur in which situations is critical for survival. Pavlovian occasion setters are stimuli that determine whether other stimuli will result in a specific outcome. Occasion setting is a well-established phenomenon, but very little investigation has been conducted on how occasion setters are disambiguated when they themselves are ambiguous (i.e., when they do not consistently signal whether another stimulus will be reinforced). In two preregistered studies, we investigated the role of higher-order Pavlovian occasion setting in humans. We developed and tested the first computational model predicting direct associative learning, traditional occasion setting (i.e., 1st-order occasion setting), and 2nd-order occasion setting. This model operationalizes stimulus ambiguity as a mechanism to engage in higher-order Pavlovian learning. Both behavioral and computational modeling results suggest that 2nd-order occasion setting was learned, as evidenced by lack and presence of transfer of occasion setting properties when expected and the superior fit of our 2nd-order occasion setting model compared to the 1st-order occasion setting or direct associations models. These results provide a controlled investigation into highly complex associative learning and may ultimately lead to improvements in the treatment of Pavlovian-based mental health disorders (e.g., anxiety disorders, substance use).

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ambiguity drives higher-order Pavlovian learning

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Se han propuesto numerosos modelos teóricos que explican lo ocurrido durante la extinción y la renovación. Bouton (1994), por ejemplo, señala que durante la extinción se forma un nuevo aprendizaje que provoca que el contexto de extinción actúe como un modulador negativo, es decir, un estímulo difuso que señala específicamente que en su presencia el EC no será reforzado (Alfaro, Mallea, Laborda, Cañete, & Miguez, 2018;Holland, 1989). Por lo tanto, cuando el EC es testeado en ausencia del modulador, la respuesta reaparece.…”

Section: Introductionunclassified

Contexto de Extinción no actúa como Inhibidor Condicionado en una Tarea Apetitiva

Cañete

González-Aravena²,

Díaz³

et al. 2022

Rev. Arg. Cs. Comp.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Para explicar la extinción Pavloviana se ha postulado que el contexto de extinción actúa como un inhibidor condicionado, contribuyendo así a las recaídas. Dos experimentos de condicionamiento apetitivo en ratas evaluaron el potencial inhibitorio del contexto de extinción y su revaluación retrospectiva. En el Experimento 1, los sujetos aprendieron una asociación en el contexto A, para luego ser extinguida en un contexto B. Subsecuentemente, se extinguió el excitador en un tercer contexto para revaluar el potencial inhibitorio del contexto B. Finalmente, se realizaron tests de sumación y retardo para medir la inhibición del contexto B. El Experimento 2 fue similaral Experimento 1, pero aumentó los ensayos de Adquisición y Extinción para fortalecer el entrenamiento inhibitorio. Los resultados de ambos experimentos indican que el contexto de extinción no actuó como un inhibidor condicionado. Estos datos contrastan con observaciones análogas en condicionamiento aversivo.

show abstract

Learning and performance: A tribute to the contributions of Ralph R. Miller

Blaisdell

2018

Behavioural Processes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Assessing the blocking of occasion setting

Cited by 3 publications

References 30 publications

Ambiguity drives higher-order Pavlovian learning

Ambiguity drives higher-order Pavlovian learning

Contexto de Extinción no actúa como Inhibidor Condicionado en una Tarea Apetitiva

Learning and performance: A tribute to the contributions of Ralph R. Miller

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About