Pavlovian compound conditioning in the rabbit

Saavedra, Miguel

doi:10.1016/0023-9690(75)90012-0

Cited by 130 publications

(124 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

118

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, the process is in danger of being too able to solve these difficult discriminations. For example, it must also account for the fact that these discriminations are more difficult than other discriminations involving the same stimuli: Negative patterning is learned more slowly than positive patterning (A− B− AB+; Bellingham, Gillette-Bellingham, & Kehoe, 1985), and a biconditional discrimination is learned more slowly than a component discrimination (AB+ AC+ BD− CD−) in which one stimulus (A) reliably predicts the US and another (D) predicts no US (Saavedra, 1975). Anticipating this criticism, Pearce (1987Pearce ( , 1994 proposed that any configural node is fully activated by its complete pattern of stimulus input, but is proportionally activated by part of the input pattern.…”

Section: Pearce's Configural Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Elemental representations of stimuli in associative learning.

Harris

2006

Psychological Review

156

255

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper reviews evidence and theories concerning the nature of stimulus representations in Pavlovian conditioning. It focuses on the elemental approach developed in Stimulus Sampling Theory (Atkinson & Estes, 1963;Bush & Mosteller, 1951b) and extended by McLaren and Mackintosh (2000;2002), and contrasts this with models that that invoke notions of configural representations that uniquely code for different patterns of stimulus inputs (e.g., Pearce, 1987Pearce, , 1994Wagner & Brandon, 2001). The paper then presents a new elemental model that emphasizes interactions between stimulus elements. This model is shown to explain a range of behavioral findings, including those (e.g., negative patterning and biconditional discriminations) traditionally thought beyond the explanatory capabilities of elemental models. Moreover, the model offers a ready explanation for recent findings reported by Rescorla (2000;2001;2002b) concerning the way that stimuli with different conditioning histories acquire associative strength when conditioned in compound.

show abstract

Section: Pearce's Configural Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Elemental representations of stimuli in associative learning.

Harris

2006

Psychological Review

156

255

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, Saavedra [12] demonstrated that rabbits can learn a biconditional discrimination of the form, AX+/BX− / AY −/BY + (the compounds AX and BY reinforced, and the compounds BX and AY nonreinforced). In this case, the animals came to respond to the combinations AX and BY but not to the same stimuli in the other combinations, BX and AY.…”

Section: Three Componential Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The Saavedra biconditional discrimination study [12] included a comparison group that was given the discrimination problem, AC+ , BC −, AD+, BD −, using the same compounds. According to the added elements view, the biconditional discrimination should be possible because of the configural elements ac, ad, bc, and bd that are unique to each compound, but it should be more difficult than the comparison component problem, which has more unique elements.…”

Section: Three Componential Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A componential view of configural cues in generalization and discrimination in Pavlovian conditioning

Brandon

Vögel

Wagner

2000

Behavioural Brain Research

128

216

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The negative patterning (Whitlow & Wagner, 1972) and biconditional discrimination (Saavedra, 1975) are examples of such problems. In negative patterning stimuli presented alone are paired with one type of outcome (A+, B+) but the combination of stimuli is paired with the absence of outcome or a different outcome (AB-).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Individual difference in configural associative learning.

Byrom¹,

Murphy

2016

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Learning and Cogniti

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Individuals differ in their ability to acquire associations between stimuli and paired outcomes, an ability that has been proposed to be independent of general metrics of intelligence or memory (e.g., Kaufman, DeYoung, Gray, Brown, & Mackintosh, 2009). The nature of these differences may reflect the type of associative structures acquired during learning, for instance configuring stimuli to facilitate flexible learning and memory. We test the hypothesis that individuals differ in configural associative learning as distinct from simpler (elemental) stimulusoutcome learning. In Experiment 1 participants were screened for attentional scope and we found that attentional scope predicted configural associative learning that could not be explained simply in terms of differences in strength of associative learning. In Experiment 2, attentional scope was trained resulting in a shift in participants' ability to learn about subsequent configurations unrelated to the training material. We discuss how the differences between individual learners reflect differences in configuring rather than simply differences in strength or speed of learning.3

show abstract

Pavlovian compound conditioning in the rabbit

Cited by 130 publications

References 8 publications

Elemental representations of stimuli in associative learning.

Elemental representations of stimuli in associative learning.

A componential view of configural cues in generalization and discrimination in Pavlovian conditioning

Individual difference in configural associative learning.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About