Backward blocking in first-order conditioning.

Urushihara, Kouji; Miller, Ralph R.

doi:10.1037/a0016773

Cited by 14 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 53 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This means that a backwards temporal arrangement between A and X produces more conditioning than does a forwards relation. This surprising finding has been extended to other temporal conditioning procedures (e.g., Urushihara & Miller, 2010) and strongly suggests that animals code the temporal arrangement of stimuli during trace conditioning. These findings are consistent with the idea that animals learn both an association between CS and US, as well as the temporal relation between them.…”

Section: Theoretical Mechanisms Of Trace Fear Conditioningmentioning

confidence: 61%

Bridging the interval: Theory and neurobiology of trace conditioning

Raybuck

Lattal

2014

Behavioural Processes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An early finding in the behavioral analysis of learning was that conditioned responding weakens as the conditioned stimulus (CS) and unconditioned stimulus (US) are separated in time. This “trace” conditioning effect has been the focus of years of research in associative learning. Theoretical accounts of trace conditioning have focused on mechanisms that allow associative learning to occur across long intervals between the CS and US. These accounts have emphasized degraded contingency effects, timing mechanisms, and inhibitory learning. More recently, study of the neurobiology of trace conditioning has shown that even a short interval between the CS and US alters the circuitry recruited for learning. Here, we review some of the theoretical and neurobiological mechanisms underlying trace conditioning with an emphasis on recent studies of trace fear conditioning. Findings across many studies have implications not just for how we think about time and conditioning, but also for how we conceptualize fear conditioning in general, suggesting that circuitry beyond the usual suspects needs to be incorporated into current thinking about fear, learning, and anxiety.

show abstract

Section: Theoretical Mechanisms Of Trace Fear Conditioningmentioning

confidence: 61%

Bridging the interval: Theory and neurobiology of trace conditioning

Raybuck

Lattal

2014

Behavioural Processes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…During the cue-free part of each LgA training session, METH reinforcement is paired with the context alone, possibly resulting in backward blocking of the discrete cue. However, while backward blocking is regularly observed in studies of human learning (Beckers et al, 2005), this phenomenon is reportedly very difficult to attain in the rat model (Urushihara and Miller, 2010), making this effect an unlikely influence of reinstatement performance in LgA rats. However, repeated lever-contingent delivery of METH in the absence of the discrete cue may act to degrade the correlative relationship between the cue and reinforcement.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Attenuation of methamphetamine seeking by the mGluR2/3 agonist LY379268 in rats with histories of restricted and escalated self-administration

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent findings implicate group II metabotropic glutamate receptors (mGluR2/3) in the reinforcing effects of psychostimulants and have identified these receptors as potential treatment targets for drug addiction. Here, we investigated the effects of mGluR2/3 stimulation on cue- and drug-primed reinstatement in rats with different histories of methamphetamine (METH) self-administration training, under two conditions: 16 daily sessions of short access (90 min/day, ShA), or 8 daily sessions of short access followed by 8 sessions of long access (6 hr/day, LgA). Following self-administration and subsequent extinction training, rats were pretreated with the selective mGluR2/3 agonist LY379268 (variable dose, 0 – 3 mg/kg), exposed to METH-paired cues or a priming injection of METH (1 mg/kg), and tested for reinstatement of METH-seeking behavior. LgA rats self-administered greater amounts of METH during the second half of training, but when pretreated with vehicle, ShA and LgA rats showed cue- and drug-primed reinstatement at equivalent response rates. However, LgA rats demonstrated greater sensitivity to mGluR2/3 stimulation with attenuated responding during cue-induced reinstatement after 0.3 mg/kg and higher doses of LY379268, whereas ShA rats decreased cue-induced reinstatement behavior following 1.0 mg/kg and 3.0 mg/kg LY379268. Additionally, both LgA and ShA rats exhibited decreased METH-primed reinstatement behavior following 0.3 mg/kg and higher doses of LY379268. A separate group of control rats was trained to self-administer sucrose pellets, and demonstrated attenuated cue-induced sucrose-seeking behavior following 1.0 and 3.0 mg/kg LY379268. Together, the results indicate that LY379268 has differential attenuating effects on cue-induced reinstatement behavior in rats with different histories of METH intake.

show abstract

“…This is at variance with the assumption of traditional associative theories that the associative value of a cue can change only on trials where that cue is present. It is noteworthy that Miller and Matute (1996; also see Urushihara & Miller, 2010) later also reported backward blocking in a conditioning procedure using rats as subjects. Backward blocking and related retrospective revaluation effects catalyzed the development of new theories of learning, such as revised acquisition-focused theories (Dickinson & Burke, 1996; Van Hamme & Wasserman, 1994) and propositional theories of learning (e.g., Beckers, De Houwer, Pineño, & Miller, 2005; De Houwer, Beckers, & Vandorpe, 2005; Lovibond, 2003; Mitchell & Lovibond, 2002; Mitchell, De Houwer, & Lovibond, 2009) and also increased the appeal of the comparator hypothesis (Miller & Matzel, 1988; Miller & Schachtman, 1985).…”

mentioning

confidence: 91%

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

Boddez¹,

Baeyens²,

Hermans³

et al. 2011

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Backward blocking in first-order conditioning.

Cited by 14 publications

References 53 publications

Bridging the interval: Theory and neurobiology of trace conditioning

Bridging the interval: Theory and neurobiology of trace conditioning

Attenuation of methamphetamine seeking by the mGluR2/3 agonist LY379268 in rats with histories of restricted and escalated self-administration

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About