Conditioning and Learning

Abstract

The empirical laws of Pavlovian conditioning are summarized for situations with two stimuli and for situations with more than two stimuli. Factors considered include stimulus salience, genetic and experiential predispositions, contiguity, stimulus similarity, contingency, mimetic and compensatory responding, and stimulus generalization. Also reviewed are the consequences of introducing a third stimulus, which include stimulus competition, interference, facilitation, and summation, as well as positive and negative mediation. At the theoretical level, the critical assumptions and variables of acquisition‐focused and performance‐focused models are examined with special attention to retrospective revaluation. Additionally, the basic laws of instrumental responding are summarized with attention to the law of effect, the three‐term contingency, and schedules of reinforcement. Associative structures underlying instrumental responding are also considered, as are hierarchical associations and incentive learning. Finally, a functional analysis of instrumental conditioning is provided with special attention to choice behavior and the matching law, as well as ecological and economic considerations.

Stimulus and response representations underlying orthogonal stimulus-response compatibility effects

“…That is, salience is a relative property of stimuli and responses, not a fixed property, which implies that the salience of the alternatives can be affected by several factors (Reeve, Proctor, Weeks, & Dornier, 1992). This implication is consistent with views of salience developed from research on spatial interactions in perception (e.g., Brady, 1997), auditory space perception (Wightman & Kistler, 1997), and stimulus control in Pavlovian conditioning (Miller & Grace, 2003), and it has been supported in several choice-reaction studies, two of which we will describe. When a row of four equally spaced stimulus locations is mapped directly to a row of four response keys, operated by the index and middle fingers of each hand, performance benefits more if the two left or two right locations are precued than if the two inner or two outer locations are (Reeve & Proctor, 1984).…”

Detection of an inhibitory cortical gradient underlying peak shift in learning: A neural basis for a false memory

“…Auditory generalization continues to be an area of active research (Wright & Zhang, 2009). In contrast, studies of stimulus discrimination revealed the unexpected finding that the peak of the generalization gradient was not at the CS+ (or S+ for instrumental conditioning), but rather was shifted away from the value of the non-reinforced stimulus (Farthing & Hearst, 1968; Hanson, 1959; Miller & Grace, 2003; Purtle, 1973). …”

Discretionary task interleaving: Heuristics for time allocation in cognitive foraging.

“…Over time, the ratio of response to reward at the two levers is observed to be approximately equal, which empirical regularity is called "matching". There are several theories of how and why matching is achieved, for a review see Miller and Grace (2003). Depending on the particular reinforcement schedules, it is sometimes, but not always the case that matching results from optimal response allocation (e.g.…”