Integration of spatial maps in pigeons

Blaisdell, Aaron P.; Cook, Robert G.

doi:10.1007/s10071-004-0223-1

Cited by 58 publications

(69 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although we interpret our data within the framework of cognitive map theory, from an associative learning perspective, our results lend sup-HARDT, H , HU UPBAC ACH, , AND AND N NADEL Sutherland, 1999; Rodrigo et al, 1997;Sanchez-Moreno et al, 1999). In most of these studies, however, direct evidence about what kind of spatial representations were acquired during the course of learning was not provided (but see Blaisdell & Cook, 2005;Chamizo, Rodrigo, & Mackintosh, 2006;and Sawa, Leising, & Blaisdell, 2005, for studies suggesting the presence of associative mechanisms mediating learning of allocentric representations). Therefore, it is possible that subjects recruited egocentric strategies or that they shifted in the course of training from allocentric to egocentric strategies.…”

Section: Sex Differencesmentioning

confidence: 67%

Factors moderating blocking in human place learning: The role of task instructions

Hardt

Hupbach

Nadel

2009

Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Sex Differencesmentioning

confidence: 67%

Factors moderating blocking in human place learning: The role of task instructions

Hardt

Hupbach

Nadel

2009

Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Perhaps more relevant to the present case is the evidence of sensory preconditioning in the spatial domain provided by Blaisdell and Cook (2005) and by Sawa, Leising, and Blaisdell (2005). In these experiments, pigeons were trained to find, or peck at, an invisible goal, which bore a constant spatial relationship to a particular landmark, LM1.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 91%

Spatial integration with rats

Chamizo

Rodrigo

Mackintosh

2006

Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…A spatial version of these tenets can easily be applied to the current findings. That is, spatial information is automatically encoded as part of the association, plays a role in the nature and magnitude of a conditioned response, and spatial maps can be superimposed when there are elements common to those maps (see Blaisdell & Cook, 2005) for data supportive of this view). The current findings indicate that spatial information is relevant to stimulus interaction regardless of the type of interaction (i.e., cues trained together, e.g., blocking in Experiment 1, or cues trained apart, e.g., proactive interference in Experiment 2).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Similarity in spatial origin of information facilitates cue competition and interference

Amundson

Miller

2007

Learning and Motivation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two lick suppression studies were conducted with water-deprived rats to investigate the influence of spatial similarity in cue interaction. Experiment 1 assessed the influence of similarity of the spatial origin of competing cues in a blocking procedure. Greater blocking was observed in the condition in which the auditory blocking cue and the auditory blocked cue originated at the same spatial location. Recent investigations have demonstrated that manipulations that impact competition between cues trained together have similar effects on interference between cues trained apart. Therefore, Experiment 2 investigated the influence of similarity of the spatial origin in proactive interference of Pavlovian conditioning by separately pairing two auditory cues with a common outcome, originating at the same spatial location or different spatial locations. Greater proactive interference was observed in the condition in which the interfering cue and target cue originated at the same spatial location. The results are considered in light of the possibility that a similar mechanism may underlie interference between cues trained apart and cue competition between cues trained together.Cue competition refers to situations in which the presence of a nontarget stimulus during reinforced training of a target cue attenuates conditioned responding to the target cue at the time of test. In other words, when two cues are compounded and paired with an outcome, an inverse relationship is observed between the behavioral control exerted by each of the cues when tested alone. Cue interference here refers to situations in which a target cue is paired with a reinforcer in Phase 1 (or 2) and a nontarget cue is paired with a reinforcer in Phase 2 (or 1), such that the nontarget cue trials impair the behavioral control of the target cue that would otherwise result. Alternatively stated, cue competition refers to a deleterious interaction between cues trained together, whereas cue interference refers to a deleterious interaction between cues trained apart.The contemporary associative analysis of cue interaction has focused almost exclusively on the examination of cues that are presented in compound at some point during training (e.g., blocking, overshadowing, and the relative stimulus validity effect). In a blocking preparation (Kamin, 1968;Lashley, 1942), the blocking stimulus (A) is paired with an unconditioned stimulus (US) in an initial phase of treatment (i.e., A-US trials in Phase 1). The blocking cue (A) is then paired with the blocked cue (X) and the US in a subsequent phase of treatment (i.e., AX-US trials in Phase 2). The compound training trials facilitate Cue A competing with Cue X; thus, at the time of test weaker responding to Cue X is observed relative to a control condition that had not received prior training with A. The ability of a theory to account for such interaction between cues presented together is considered a critical benchmark for contemporary models Mailing Address: Ralph R. Miller,

show abstract

Integration of spatial maps in pigeons

Cited by 58 publications

References 31 publications

Factors moderating blocking in human place learning: The role of task instructions

Factors moderating blocking in human place learning: The role of task instructions

Spatial integration with rats

Similarity in spatial origin of information facilitates cue competition and interference

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About