Conditioned Approach and Contact Behavior toward Signals for Food or Brain-Stimulation Reinforcement

Peterson, Gail B.; Ackilt, James E.; Frommer, Gabriel P.; Hearst, Eliot

doi:10.1126/science.177.4053.1009

Cited by 187 publications

(125 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

114

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…There are no levers in the wild, and rats do not usually appear to be opening a lever as if it were a seed or capturing the lever as though it were a prey item (although, see Peterson et al, 1972). If lever pressing was related to responses normally part of the foraging repertoire of rats, then we would expect to see identifiable portions of the food repertoire directed to the lever.…”

Section: A Brief Sur6ey Of Face-6alid Niche-related Aspects Of Generamentioning

confidence: 99%

Integrating niche-related and general process approaches in the study of learning

Timberlake

2001

Behavioural Processes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

For nearly a century the experimental analysis of learning in animals has been divided into niche-related and general-process approaches, each emphasizing different procedures and conceptual strategies. After considering several current forms of rapprochement, I outline evidence for the integrative hypothesis that niche-related learning provides the basis for results in traditional general-process learning paradigms. Although the full ramifications of this view are not developed here, its advantages include: a clearer relation between laboratory and field results; conceptual and pragmatic guidance in developing new paradigms, and applying old ones to different species and circumstances; clarification of the laws, limits, and anomalies in general-process paradigms; and a more efficient path for inter-relating the study of learning with neurophysiology, genetics, and evolution.

show abstract

Section: A Brief Sur6ey Of Face-6alid Niche-related Aspects Of Generamentioning

confidence: 99%

Integrating niche-related and general process approaches in the study of learning

Timberlake

2001

Behavioural Processes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Through conditioning, different components of the task (e.g., the CS or the context) may acquire incentive salience, becoming a 'wanted' stimulus (Berridge, 1996). Where stimuli have acquired this new property, they (a) elicit attention and approach behavior (Flagel, Watson, Akil & Robinson, 2008;Hearst & Jenkins, 1974;Peterson, Ackilt, Frommer & Hearst, 1972 Individual differences have been observed in the propensity for CSs to acquire incentive salience. Zener (1937) described individual differences in classical conditioning with dogs.…”

Section: Example 2: Sign-tracking and Individual Differences In Addicmentioning

confidence: 99%

Individual differences are more than a gene × environment interaction: The role of learning.

Byrom

Murphy

2018

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Learning and Cogniti

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Individual differences in behavior are understood generally as arising from an interaction between genes and environment, omitting a crucial component. The literature on animal and human learning suggests the need to posit principles of learning to explain our differences. One of the challenges for the advancement of the field has been to establish how general principles of learning can explain the almost infinite variation in behavior. We present a case that: 1) individual differences in behavior emerge, in part, from principles of learning; 2) associations provide a descriptive mechanism for understanding the contribution of experience to behavior; 3) learning theories explain dissociable aspects of behavior. We use four examples from the field of learning to illustrate the importance of involving psychology, and associative theory in particular, in the analysis of individual differences, these are; i) fear learning, ii) behavior directed to cues for outcomes (i.e., sign-and goaltracking), iii) stimulus learning related to attention, and iv) human causal learning. Individual Differences 3A goal of research into learning is to characterize how behavior changes with experience within and across species. Thorndike's (1898) Law of Effect was an early attempt to characterize the effect of experience on behavior. In offering a general law of how experience contributes to behavior, Thorndike was also giving an account of how an individual becomes unique.The classic example of Thorndike's method involved cats and an apparatus known as a puzzle box (Thorndike, 1898). The box was a rudimentary cage with latches and gates to afford escape. The cats' dislike of confined space provided a natural motivation to engage in behaviors that might serendipitously lead to release. Thorndike observed that the cats made many false starts but eventually made a response that enabled escape. With repeated exposure to the box, latency to escape decreased. The Law of Effect stated that behaviors preceding any form of 'satisfaction' (e.g., escape) would be reinforced and made more likely on subsequent trials. However, rather than considering this principle as limiting an animal's flexibility to learn, the law only restricts the conditions for learning. Consider that outside the lab, different humans can successfully complete a motivated goal in different ways. They may behave differently but the same Law of Effect strengthens their behaviors.The goals of this paper are to present the case for the individual differences approach to learning theory. We will argue that (1) learning mediates the influence of genes and environment on behavior and (2) there is complexity, to be explored, within models of learning that can account for diversity in learning. Specifically, we suggest that while genes and environment may contribute to the development of differences in learning, that an individual's phenotype interacts with experience and the memories of experience to further cause individual differences. As such, the study of individual diff...

show abstract

“…Although Cautela's review appeared prior to many of the more well-controlled demonstrations of backward conditioning, it is apparent that none of the experimental evidence for backward conditioning to date would satisfy both his explicit and his implicit criteria. In fact, not even widely accepted demonstrations of forward conditioning (e.g., Peterson, Ackil, Frommer, & Hearst, 1972;Wasserman, 1973) meet all of the criteria derived from the stimulus-substitution definition of conditioning. Mackintosh (1974) did not make explicit the criteria he used.…”

Section: Cautelamentioning

confidence: 99%

Backward conditioning: A reevaluation of the empirical evidence.

Spetch¹,

Wilkie²,

Pinel³

1981

Psychological Bulletin

139

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is an apparent discrepancy between the widespread view that backward conditioning does not occur and the experimental evidence which suggests that it does. Backward pairing of conditioned and unconditioned stimuli frequently has resulted in effects similar to those produced by forward pairing, and the results of several recent experiments have established that such effects cannot be attributed to factors other than stimulus pairing per se. Surprisingly, even some of the earlier experiments that provided the basis for the current skepticism concerning backward conditioning provide evidence of its existence. The failure to recognize backward conditioning as a legitimate phenomenon seems to reflect theoretical biases rather than a paucity of empirical evidence. Thus backward conditioning and its properties merit renewed interest and rcexamination.

show abstract

Conditioned Approach and Contact Behavior toward Signals for Food or Brain-Stimulation Reinforcement

Cited by 187 publications

References 7 publications

Integrating niche-related and general process approaches in the study of learning

Integrating niche-related and general process approaches in the study of learning

Individual differences are more than a gene × environment interaction: The role of learning.

Backward conditioning: A reevaluation of the empirical evidence.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About