Resistance to interference in complex negative patterning

Williams, Douglas A.; Gaweł, J.; Reimer, Dallas S.; Mehta, Rick

doi:10.3758/bf03193180

Cited by 3 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The present results were not, however, entirely unexpected. Our method of training was similar to that in a series of experiments by Williams et al (2002; see also Williams et al, 2005;Williams et al, 2004), in which it was found that the common element of an AX+ BX+ ABX-discrimination elicited an above-asymptotic rate of responding when presented by itself. If a stimulus elicits a high rate of responding, it is not unreasonable to expect it to be paid considerable attention.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 93%

“…Subjects again received an AX+ BX+ ABX-discrimination, but they also received additional reinforced trials with A and B by themselves (see the lower part of Table 1). Williams et al (2005) have shown that the addition of the reinforced trials with A and B does not prevent X from eliciting a high rate of responding when it is presented by itself once the discrimination has been mastered. It was anticipated, therefore, that despite the change in design, the associability of the irrelevant X would again be high at the end of the initial discrimination.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These authors found that after rats were trained with the negative patterning discrimination AX+ BX+ ABX-, when X was presented by itself it elicited stronger responding than did a single stimulus that had been repeatedly paired with food throughout the experiment. This result occurred despite X being irrelevant to the solution of the discrimination (see also Williams, Gawel, Reimer, & Mehta, 2005;Williams, Mehta, & Dumont, 2004). If a stimulus elicits a high rate of responding, it might also command a considerable degree of attention, and if this were the case, it would pose a challenge to the generalization that animals pay more attention to relevant than to irrelevant stimuli.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Changes in attention to an irrelevant cue that accompanies a negative attending discrimination

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pigeons were trained in two experiments with negative patterning discriminations that were accompanied by an irrelevant cue. For Experiment 1, the discriminations were of the form AX+ BX+ ABX-, where A and B were relevant, X was irrelevant, and + or - indicate whether or not reinforcement was delivered. The discriminations for Experiment 2 were of the form A+ B+ AX+ BX+ ABX-. A subsequent test phase in both experiments revealed that the associability of A and B, and hence the attention paid to these stimuli, was less than the associability of X. The results are explained with a modified version of a configural theory of associative learning.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 93%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Changes in attention to an irrelevant cue that accompanies a negative attending discrimination

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A tone (approximately 78 dB and 2.9 kHz) was produced from a piezo buzzer positioned on the floor of the sound-attenuating shell behind each operant chamber. A flashing light (2 Hz) was produced by a 3 5 array of white LEDs, located on the floor of the sound-attenuating shell in front of the operant Gawel, Reimer, & Mehta, 2005;Williams, Mehta, & Dumont, 2004). In particular, if a redundant stimulus (X) is added to a negative-patterning discrimination (i.e., training on an AX BX ABX discrimination), the Rescorla-Wagner model predicts that this discrimination will be easier than the comparable discrimination without the redundant stimulus, whereas the available evidence indicates the opposite, that the redundant stimulus makes the discrimination harder (Pearce & Redhead, 1993;Rescorla, 1972).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Representations of single and compound stimuli in negative and positive patterning

Harris

Gharaei

Moore

2009

Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In four experiments, rats were trained on different patterning discriminations before being tested with comp pounds composed of novel combinations of the trained stimuli. In Experiment 1, rats were trained on a negativep patterning schedule (A B AB ) intermixed with reinforced presentations of a second compound (CD ). On a subsequent test, the rats responded more to two novel compounds, AC and BD, than to A and B, but less than to CD. In Experiment 2, rats were trained on two concurrent negative-patterning discriminations (A B AB , C D CD ). On test, they responded more to AC and BD than to AB and CD, but less than to the single stimuli. In Experiment 3, rats were trained on two concurrent positive-patterning discriminations (A B AB , C D CD ). On test, their response rates to AC and BD were not different from the response rates to the trained compounds (AB and CD). Finally, in Experiment 4, rats were trained on a positive-and negativepatterning discrimination concurrently. Once again, on test, response rates to AC and BD were not different from patterning discrimination concurrently. Once again, on test, response rates to AC and BD were not different from responding on reinforced trials of the trained discriminations (A , B , and CD ). We discuss the implications of these findings for elemental and configural models of stimulus representation. Learning & Behavior 2009, 37 (3), [230][231][232][233][234][235][236][237][238][239][240][241][242][243][244][245] J. A. Harris, justinh@psych.usyd.edu.au S STIMULU TIMULUS S REPRES SENTATION ENTATIONS S IN IN PATTERNING NING R R DIS SC CRIMINATION IMINATIONS S 231 231(CD ). After extended training (60 days), they were tested with these four single and compound stimuli, as well as with two new compounds (AC and BD) and the single stimuli (C and D; none of the new stimuli were reinforced during the test). This design is similar to that described by Rescorla (1972) and Whitlow and Wagner (1972), the key difference being that the rats were trained with a compound (CD ), rather than with a single, CS (C ). The reason for this change was that the design of the earlier experiments (A B AB C ) creates a correlation between stimulus number (single vs. compound) and reinforcement, and if the rats learned this correlation (i.e., that compound trials are not reinforced), it would bias responding to the novel compounds on test. This might occur if the rats could use number or any property correlated with number (e.g., overall stimulation intensity) as a configural element that would readily generalize from AB to the test compounds. By training CD rather than C , the present experiment removed this correlation, because AB trials during training were balanced by CD trials. The Rescorla-Wagner model predicts that responding to AC (or BD) will be given by the summed associative strengths of A and C (or B and D). Because the associative strengths of A and B should be greater than those of C and D, the AC and BD compounds should have greater associative strength and, thus, elicit more vig...

show abstract

“…For example, Pearce's configural theory (Pearce, 1987(Pearce, , 1994 is better than the Rescorla-Wagner model (Rescorla & Wagner, 1972) in accounting for resistance to interference ( , ; , , y , , (Pearce & Wilson, 1991;Shanks, Charles, Darby, & Azmi, 1998;Williams, Gawel, Reimer, & Mehta, 2005) and for salience effects in disd crimination learning (Pearce & Redhead, 1993;Redhead & Pearce, 1995), whereas the Rescorla-Wagner model is better able to account for summation (Myers, Vogel, Shin, & Wagner, 2001;Rescorla, 1997Rescorla, , 1999Wagner, 2003) and relative validity (Wagner, Logan, Haberlandt, t & Price, 1968). Thus, there is growing acceptance that r the extent to which stimuli are processed configurally or elementally is flexible, rather than representing mutually exclusive alternatives.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of pretraining on acquisition of novel configural discriminations in human predictive learning

Mehta

Russell

2009

Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In two experiments, participants acquired one of two target configural discriminations (a biconditional or negative patterning discrimination) in a predictive learning task. In Experiment 1, participants were pretrained with either a configural or an elemental discrimination; in Experiment 2, they were pretrained with a configural discrimination, an elemental discrimination, or a control discrimination that was not expected to bias them toward elemental or configural processing. In both experiments, acquisition of the target configural discriminations was faster after configural pretraining than after elemental pretraining. In addition, the negative patterning discrimination was acquired faster than the biconditional discrimination. Finally, the results of Experiment 2 were more consistent with the notion that elemental pretraining hindered acquisition of the target discriminations than with the notion that configural pretraining enhanced their acquisition. Implications of these findings are discussed.

show abstract

Resistance to interference in complex negative patterning

Cited by 3 publications

References 25 publications

Changes in attention to an irrelevant cue that accompanies a negative attending discrimination

Changes in attention to an irrelevant cue that accompanies a negative attending discrimination

Representations of single and compound stimuli in negative and positive patterning

Effects of pretraining on acquisition of novel configural discriminations in human predictive learning

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About