Rehearsal in animal conditioning.

Wagner, Allan R.; Rudy, Jerry W.; Whitlow, Jesse W.

doi:10.1037/h0034136

Cited by 287 publications

(229 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

213

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Test performance would be assumed to be based either on the more stable long-term information, if it can be accessed, or on short-term memory, if the appropriate information still resides there. The Wagner, Rudy, and Whitlow (1973) theory of rehearsal in animal conditioning, as well as Spear's (1973Spear's ( , 1976 analysis of stimulus processing in relation to reinstatement or retrieval cues, is consistent with this general framework. Suppose that poststimulus processing (rehearsal) tends to occur following sample presentations and that, on interference trials, the presentation of the B stimulus disrupts rehearsal of the A stimulus in favor of rehearsal of the B stimulus.…”

Section: Subjectsmentioning

confidence: 49%

Proactive interference in monkeys: Delay and intersample interval effects are noncomparable

Medin

1980

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two prominent theories of proactive interference in animal memory predict that the effects of varying the interval between the interfering and to-be-remembered stimulus in a delayedmatching-to-sample paradigm ought to be comparable to the effects of manipulating the retention interval. To assess this prediction, monkeys were tested in a situation in which a sample was presented, followed by a variable intersample interval, whereupon a second sample was presented. After a delay interval, a choice test was given between the two stimuli that had served as samples. The correct choice was always the most recently presented sample stimulus, and the initial sample of a sequence provided a potential source of proactive interference. In two experiments, delay interval altered performance, whereas interstimulus interval had little or no effect. In a third experiment, using a small set of sample stimuli, intertrial interval altered proactive interference, but again interstimulus interval had no effect. One way of accounting for these data is in terms of distinct short-and long-term memory processes. 553As interest in short-term memory in animals continues, the number of stable empirical relationships uncovered steadily mounts. There is evidence, for example, that interference treatments alter memory for stimuli, responses, and reinforcers in a similar way (Maki, Moe, & Bierley, 1977) and produce the same pattern of results regardless of whether the subject population consists of pigeons, monkeys, or dolphins (D'Amato,1973;Herman, 1975;Roberts & Grant, 1976;Wilson, 1974;Worsham, 1975;Zentall & Hogan, 1974). Not surprisingly, there has been a concomitant interest in theories of animal memory, especially as they apply to interference phenomena.In discussing contrasting theories it will be useful to focus on a concrete experimental situation. Consider a delayed-matching-to-sample (DMTS) paradigm with two kinds of trials: (1) control trials, in which sample stimulus B is presented and, after a delay (retention) interval, a choice between stimulus A and stimulus B is given, with stimulus B rewarded; or (2) proactive interference trials, in which stimulus A is presented, then stimulus B is presented, and, after a delay interval, A and B are given on the choice test with stimulus B rewarded. Over an experimental session, A and B are rewarded equally often so that the correct solution is to choose the stimulus that has most recently served as a sample. Typically, performance on control trials surpasses that on inter- ference trials. Any memory theory must be able to address this basic finding.Although this paradigm seems to provide a natural tool for examining relationships between short-and long-term memory, the two most prominent theories of DMTS (D'Amato, 1973;Roberts & Grant, 1976) do not assume that performance reflects separate contributions from short-and long-term memory. Roberts and Grant, for example, proposed that longterm memory does not enter into pigeon DMTS performance. Instead, they assume that performance is contro...

show abstract

Section: Subjectsmentioning

confidence: 49%

Proactive interference in monkeys: Delay and intersample interval effects are noncomparable

Medin

1980

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Moreover, numerous students of human cognition (e.g., Brown, 1958;Peterson & Peterson, 1959) have argued that one event will interfere with the processing of another to the degree that the former strains the (presumably) limited processing capacity of the organism. Integrating the notion that surprise enhances processing with the view that retention can be impaired by a nontarget event that overloads a limited processing capacity, Kremer (1979) and Wagner, Rudy, and Whitlow (1973) demonstrated that an unexpected, salient intervening nontarget US presentation interfered with manifest retention of a temporally proximal target CS-US pairing more than did an otherwise comparable expected intervening event. In both of these studies, footshock served as the US in the intervening event as well as in the target event.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…procedure such as that used by Kremer (1979) and Wagner et al (1973), and we selected a target-event reinforcer (water) that was highly dissimilar and opposite in valence to the intervening-event reinforcer (footshock). This choice of an intervening event contrasted with our previous investigation of processing interference (Miller et al,Note 1), in which the intervening event consisted of novel information (unrelated to the appetitive target event) lacking any clearly appetitive or aversive characteristics.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Postacquisition unexpected footshock disrupts appetitively motivated instrumental performance based on short-term retention

Miller

Balaz

1983

Bull. Psychon. Soc.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Water-deprived rats were trained to run for water in an E-maze on a delayed-alternation task with a 5-min retention interval. Each day, long before encountering and again long after having encountered the delayed-alternation task, all subjects consistently experienced weak footshock in Context A and no foots hock in Context B. C,,::texts A and B were highly dissimilar to each other and to the E-maze. On delayed-alternation probe trials, subjects were exposed to Context A or Context B for the middle 30 sec of the delayed-alternation retention interval. Performance on these trials was unaffected when weak footshock occurred in Context A or no foots hock occurred in Context B. However, when weak foots hock occurred in Context B, retention was impaired. An absence of foots hocks in Context A produced a nonsignificant tendency towards impairment. Thus, the disruptive effects of unexpected events that occur during the retention interval do not appear to depend upon the target and unexpected events' having similar reinforcers or even having reinforcers of the same valence. The results are interpreted in terms of unexpected events' recruiting more of the limited information-processing capacity of the subject than do otherwise similar expected events. Moreover, the tendency of unexpected shock to interfere with performance more than does unexpected nonshock suggests that the degree to which an unexpected event recruits processing capacity depends on the affective value of the event as well as on its unexpectedness.

show abstract

“…Specifically, certain theories suggest a sequential processing of information from STM into LTM. Thus, the strength of representation stored in the latter would be a function of the duration of processing (e.g., rehearsal or consolidation) that had occurred in STM (e.g., John, 1967;Wagner et al, 1973). Alternatively, Kesner (1973) has suggested that STM and LTM are parallel stores, in that information can be independently processed in each (although maintenance in STM can add representation back into the LTM formation system).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Current theories of animal memory often make the distinction between a transient STM and a more permanent longterm memory (LTM) (e.g., John, 1967;McGaugh & Dawson, 1971; Wagner, Rudy, & Whitlow, 1973). …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Arousal and short-term memory: Effects of caffeine and trial spacing on delayed-alternation performance

Terry

Anthony

1980

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two experiments tested the prediction of Kesner's (1973) parallel memory-stores theory that arousal reduces retention in short-term memory. Using rats as subjects, the effect of caffeine on delayed-alternation performance in a spatial discrimination was investigated. Trial spacing was also manipulated, both alone and in combination with the drug variable. The results showed that, with massed trials, caffeine facilitated alternation at the short delay and inhibited it at the longer delays tested. Using spaced trials, caffeine decreased alternation at all delays. Spaced trials produced overall superior performance as compared with massed trials. This pattern of results is consistent with the view that caffeine reduces short-term retention but, paradoxically, can also increase performance under massed trials by decreasing proactive interference (i.e.,retention) from earlier trials.

show abstract

Rehearsal in animal conditioning.

Cited by 287 publications

References 24 publications

Proactive interference in monkeys: Delay and intersample interval effects are noncomparable

Proactive interference in monkeys: Delay and intersample interval effects are noncomparable

Postacquisition unexpected footshock disrupts appetitively motivated instrumental performance based on short-term retention

Arousal and short-term memory: Effects of caffeine and trial spacing on delayed-alternation performance

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About