Outcome-specific conditioned inhibition in Pavlovian backward conditioning

Delamater, Andrew R.; LoLordo, Vincent M.; Sosa, Wendy

doi:10.3758/bf03196000

Cited by 51 publications

(79 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These results confirm earlier reports of outcomeselective reinstatement (Colwill, 1994;Delamater et al, 2003;Leri & Stewart, 2001), a finding that implies that the noncontingent outcome has its influence over instrumental performance through an associative responseretrieval process. If the effect were to depend instead on the activation of a nonspecific motivational or behavioral process (e.g., a general increase in hunger or arousal), or some form of disinhibition, then the performance of both actions should have increased, and no specific change in choice performance should have been observed.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 81%

“…There have been several reports of outcome-selective instrumental reinstatement after blocked training in which each response is rewarded with its unique outcome in a separate daily session (Colwill, 1994;Delamater, LoLordo, & Sosa, 2003;Leri & Stewart, 2001). However, only nonspecific reinstatement effects have been observed after training in which both responses are trained in the same daily session (Colwill, 1994;Delamater, 1997).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 97%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Selective reinstatement of instrumental performance depends on the discriminative stimulus properties of the mediating outcome

Ostlund

Balleine

2007

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We conducted three experiments to investigate the associative structure underlying the reinstatement of instrumental performance after extinction. In each experiment, rats were initially rewarded on two responses with different outcomes. At test, both responses were extinguished in order to assess the impact of a single noncontingent outcome delivery on response selection. Experiment 1 found evidence of outcome-selective reinstatement (i.e., more responses were performed on the lever that was trained with the reinstating outcome than on the other lever). Experiment 2 demonstrated that the outcome's capacity to reinstate performance was not affected by a reduction in its motivational value. Experiment 3 found evidence that the reinstating outcome selectively retrieved the response it signaled rather than the response it followed during training. Together, these findings are consistent with the view that instrumental reinstatement depends on the discriminative stimulus properties of the reinstating outcome.

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 81%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 97%

Selective reinstatement of instrumental performance depends on the discriminative stimulus properties of the mediating outcome

Ostlund

Balleine

2007

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The experiments were designed to test this prediction. Work in animals suggests that conditioned inhibition attenuates specific PIT in rats (Delamater, Lolordo & Sosa, 2003;Laurent, Wong & Balleine, 2014), but to our knowledge no such effects have yet been reported in humans (although see Colagiuri & Lovibond, 2015 for related findings in a general transfer task).…”

mentioning

confidence: 86%

The effect of conditioned inhibition on the specific Pavlovian-instrumental transfer effect.

Alarcón

Bonardi

2016

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Learning and Cogniti

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Four experiments examined the effect of Pavlovian conditioned inhibition on specific Pavlovian-instrumental transfer (PIT) in human participants. The task comprised an instrumental phase in which two responses (R 1 , R 2 ) were each paired with one of two outcomes (O 1 , O 2 : R 1 -->O 1 , R 2 -->O 2 ), and a Pavlovian phase, in which two CSs, CS 1 and CS 2 each signalled one of the two outcomes (CS 1 -->O 1 , CS 2 -->O 2 ). In Experiments 1-2 a conditioned inhibitor, X, predicted the omission of one of the outcomes (e.g. CS 1 -->O 1 , CS 1 X-->nothing). In a subsequent test, performance of R 1 and R 2 was examined in the presence of CS 1 and CS 2 . A specific PIT effect was observed: R 1 was performed more than R 2 during CS 1 , and R 2 more than R 1 during CS 2 . This PIT effect was significantly reduced by the presence of the inhibitor X in Experiment 1, in which the Pavlovian phase followed the instrumental phase, and in Experiment 2 in which it preceded it. No such effect was observed when X was presented in the absence of any expectation of the outcomes during the PIT test (Experiment 3a), or when X was trained as a signal for an alternative outcome (Experiment 3b). These results are consistent with the suggestion that the specific PIT effect occurs through a stimulus-outcome-response (S-O-R) mechanism, according to which the CS evokes a representation of the outcome which in turn elicits the response (e.g. CS 1 -->O 1 -->R 1 ). The conditioned inhibitor suppresses performance of the response by suppressing activation of the outcome representation.

show abstract

“…In contrast, if the tone preceded the noise, one might expect inhibitory learning similar to that observed in Experiments 1a and 1b. These expectations are based on the knowledge that consistent forward CS→US pairings result in excitatory learning (e.g., Pavlov, 1927), whereas backward US→CS conditioning typically results in the development of inhibition (e.g., Cole & Miller, 1999;Chang, Blaisdell, & Miller, 2003;Delamater, Lolordo, & Sosa, 2003;Heth, 1976;Williams & Overmier, 1988), often after a brief period of excitatory learning.By contrast, within the MSOP account outlined previously, the temporal arrangement of noise and tone in Phase 2 might have little effect on whether noise forms an excitatory or inhibitory association with sucrose. In all cases, pairings of two associatively-activated event representations would result in excitatory learning between those representations.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Excitatory and inhibitory learning with absent stimuli.

Wheeler¹,

Sherwood²,

Holland³

2008

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Three experiments show that two associatively-activated stimulus representations may engage in excitatory or inhibitory learning, depending on their temporal relationship. Experiment 1a suggested that simultaneously-activated stimulus representations show evidence of inhibitory learning in an acquisition test. Experiment 1b showed similar evidence of inhibition in a summation test. Experiment 2 found that activation of two stimulus representations in a serial compound resulted in excitatory learning between the antecedent and the subsequent (forward), and inhibitory learning between the subsequent and the antecedent (backward). The results show the dynamic influence of temporal contiguity on mediated learning.In a Pavlovian conditioning situation, a stimulus that is repeatedly paired with an unconditioned stimulus (US) comes to elicit a conditioned response. Learning theorists often assume that this learning involves the formation of associations between this stimulus (the conditioned stimulus, CS) and the US, such that subsequent presentations of the CS alone activate the representation of the US. It is this associatively-activated representation that produces much of the conditioned responding that is attributed to the CS. Although this concept is popular among theories of learning, and throughout associative models in psychology, there is some dispute concerning the properties possessed by associatively-activated stimulus representations. They are often assumed to represent at least a portion of the directlyexperienced stimulus, but some theories suggest that an associatively-activated stimulus representation may differ from its directly-activated counterpart in many ways.Investigations conducted by Holland and colleagues elucidated some of the associative properties possessed by associatively-activated stimulus representations. In a conditioned taste aversion preparation with rats, Holland (1981) showed that a taste aversion can be learned in a situation in which the taste CS and the illness-inducing US are never directly paired with each other. Holland (1981, Exp. 1) first paired a tone with a flavored food, and later paired that tone with an illness-inducing injection of LiCl. Rats that received this treatment showed an aversion to the flavored food, compared to rats that received a similar treatment, but with unpaired presentations of the tone and flavor or of the tone and LiCl. Holland (1981) asserted that learning of the food aversion was mediated by the pairing of an associatively-activated representation of that food with illness. There was no evidence of a directly-learned tone-LiCl association, which might otherwise have mediated the expression of the food aversion by a chain of food→tone and tone→illness associations. A related series of experiments conducted by Holland and Forbes (1982) showed that a previously-established flavor aversion could be extinguished if the flavor representation was associatively activated repeatedly in the absence of the illness US. In their experiments, a flavo...

show abstract

Outcome-specific conditioned inhibition in Pavlovian backward conditioning

Cited by 51 publications

References 32 publications

Selective reinstatement of instrumental performance depends on the discriminative stimulus properties of the mediating outcome

Selective reinstatement of instrumental performance depends on the discriminative stimulus properties of the mediating outcome

The effect of conditioned inhibition on the specific Pavlovian-instrumental transfer effect.

Excitatory and inhibitory learning with absent stimuli.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About