Overtraining, Extinction, and Shift Learning in Matching-to-Sample Discriminations in Rats

2001

Self Cite

This experiment examined the whole-partial effect of overtraining in concurrent discriminations using two different sensory modality tasks (tactual and visual task) and assessed the effect against single discrimination training in rats. Overtraining facilitated reversals in both Group W, in which rats were given concurrent training on two tasks in the original learning before both tasks were reversed, and Group S, in which rats were trained only on the tactual task before it was reversed. Overtraining retarded reversal in Group P, in which rats were given the same training as in Group W in original learning, but only the tactual task was reversed. After overtraining, Groups Wand S reversed more rapidly than Group P. After criterion training, Group P reversed more rapidly than Group W, which reversed more rapidly than Group S. These findings indicate that rats form stimulus classes (i.e., cross-modal stimulus classes) between the discriminative stimuli of two different sensory modalities with the same response assignment during overtraining in two concurrent discriminations as well as between the discriminative stimuli of the same sensory modality.There are many studies on stimulus classes formation in pigeons and rats using a conditioning procedure (Hall, Ray, & Bonardi, 1993), a common coding procedure (Edwards, Jagielo, Zentall, & Hogan, 1982; Urcuioli, Zentall, Jackson-Smith, & Steirn, 1989; Zentall, Urcuioli, Jagielo, & Jackson-Smith, 1989), a whole-partial reversal procedure (Delius, Ameling, Lea, & Staddon, 1995;Nakagawa, 1978Nakagawa, , 1986Nakagawa, , 1992Nakagawa, , 1998Vaughan, 1988; Zentall, Sherburne, Steirn, Randall, Roper, & Urcuioli, 1992; Zentall, Steirn, Sherburne, & Urcuioli, 1991), and serial reversal procedure (Dube, Callahan, & Mcllvane, 1993;Vaughan, 1988). They make it clear that pigeons and rats have an ability to form stimulus classes or stimulus-stimulus associations between the discriminative stimuli of the same sensory modality, which are not only homogeneous associations (Le., shape-shape or color-color) but also heterogeneous Requests for reprints should be sent to Esho Nakagawa,

mentioning

confidence: 95%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Cross-Modal Stimulus Class Formation in Rats

2001

Self Cite

“…That is, the nonshifted pigeons learned their shift task more rapidly than did the shifted pigeons. The second method is a whole-partial reversal paradigm (Oelius, Ameling, Lea, & Staddon, 1995;Oube, Callahan, & Mcllvane, 1993;Nakagawa, 1978Nakagawa, , 1986Nakagawa, , 1992bNakagawa, , 1998Nakagawa, , 1999aNakagawa, , 1999bNakagawa, , 1999cNakagawa, , 1999dNakagawa, , 2000aVaughan, 1988;Zentall, Sherburne, Steirn, Randall, Roper & Urcuioli, 1992;Zentall , Steirn, Sherburne, & Urcuioli, 1991). In this paradigm, for example, in a series of experiments of Nakagawa, rats were concurrently trained to discriminate four simple stimuli (A, B, C, 0 for example) where responses to the two stimuli were rewarded (A+ B+ for example) and responses to the other stimuli were not rewarded (C-0-for example) to reach a criterion or were overtrained.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Shift Learning in Matching-to-Sample Discriminations in Rats as a Function of Overtraining

2002

Self Cite

Experiment 1 has examined the effect of overtraining on shift learning in a simultaneous matching-(or nonmatching-) to-sample discrimination . Experiment 2 has examined how much overtraining is required for rats to form the concept of matching in a matchingto-sample discrimination . In Experiment 1, rats were overtrained on a simultaneous matching-to-sample discrimination or nonmatching-to-sample discrimination in a discrete threestimulus-presentation T-type jumping stand and were transferred to either a nonshifted (nonshift) or a shifted task (shift). Group Nonshift learned their subsequent shift task more rapidly than Group Shift, regardless of whether rats were tested on the matching-to-sample task or the nonmatching-to-sample one (symmetry of transfer effect) . Experiment 2 shows that the apparent asymmetry of transfer effect is observed at reaching criterion (OT-O) , whereas the symmetry of transfer effect is observed after 5 days, 10 days, 15 days, and 20 days of overtraining. These results indicate that overtraining is an obvious operational precondition for symmetry of transfer effect in matching-(or nonmatching-) to-sample discrimination in rats.Recently, untrained or derived relations among stimuli during a conditional discrimination have been studied in various approach methods with nonhuman subjects such as pigeons or rats. The various approach methods have been classified roughly into three categories. The first method is a shift-nonshift paradigm of Zentall and Hogan's design (1974) (Nakagawa, 1992a, Experiment 2 in 1993a, 1993b, 2000b, 2000c b, 2001 Urcuioli, 1977; Urcuioli & Nevin, 1975;Zentall & Hogan, 1974, 1976. In this paradigm, for example, Zentall and Hogan (1974) had trained some pigeons on matching and others on oddity with one pair of stimuli, and transferred them to a new pair of stimuli , either with same rule holding as in the first problem, or with the opposite. The pigeons that had not shifted to the opposite task performed Requests for reprints should be sent to Esho Nakagawa,

Transfer of Learning between Matching (or Non-Matching)-To-Sample and Same-Different Discriminations in Rats

2000

Self Cite

. Four experiments examined transfer of learning between matching (or nonmatching)-to-sample discriminations and samedifferent discriminations. In Experiment 1, rats trained with matching (or nonmatching)-to-sample discriminations learned their subsequent nonshift tasks, consisting of the novel stimuli and novel configurations, faster than subsequent shifted ones. In Experiment 2, rats trained with same-different discriminations learned very quickly their subsequent same-different tasks consisting of the novel stimuli and novel configurations. Of all the rats, 88% responded correctly on the first trial in Phase 2 transfer. In Experiment 3, rats trained with the matching (or nonmatching)-to-sample discriminations facilitated subsequent same-different discriminations, relative to rats given either a simultaneous discrimination or a pseudo-discrimination training with the matching (or nonmatching)-to-sample discriminations. In Experiment 4, rats trained with the same-different discriminations facilitated · subsequent matching (or nonmatching)-to-sample discriminations, relative to rats given either a position discrimination or a pseudo-discrimination training with the samedifferent task. These findings suggest that the same mechanism governs the formation of associations between stimuli in both matching (or nonmatching)-to-sample discriminations and samedifferent discriminations.