Retrospective revaluation: The phenomenon and its theoretical implications

Abstract

Retrospective revaluation refers to an increase (or decrease) in responding to conditioned stimulus (CS X) as a result of decreasing (or increasing) the associative strength of another CS (A) with respect to the unconditioned stimulus (i.e., A-US) that was previously trained in compound with the target CS (e.g., AX−US or just AX). We discuss the conditions under which retrospective revaluation phenomena are most apt to be observed and their implications for various models of learning that are able to account for retrospective revaluation (e.g., Dickinson and Burke, 1996; Miller and Matzel, 1988; Van Hamme and Wasserman, 1994). Although retroactive revaluation is relatively parameter specific, it is seen to be a reliable phenomenon observed across many tasks and species. As it is not anticipated by many conventional models of learning (e.g., Rescorla and Wagner, 1972), it serves as a critical benchmark for evaluating traditional and newer models.

Associative learning and timing

“…This idea was developed by the British associationist philosophers of the 19 th century and became foundational for modern experimental psychology. The idea that learning depends on temporal contiguity is often accepted as axiomatic [1-3]. In this view, time is important for the establishment of associations but is not part of what is encoded in the association.…”

A double error dynamic asymptote model of associative learning.

“…Models relying on CS-US specific 'local', non-competitive error terms are capable of accounting for some of these effects by assuming other processes of competition, for instance on attentional competition between the predictors, as postulated by the model of Mackintosh (1975). Alternatively, the comparator hypothesis model (Miller & Matzel, 1988;Miller & Witnauer, 2016) explains cue competition results as a retrieval effect. It assumes that when a previously reinforced CS is presented (the target), it re-activates both representations of other CSs paired with the US and the US representation itself.…”

“…These so called mediated learning effects are of interest as they allow for an understanding of processes governing learning between representations of stimuli which are present and ones which are absent yet associatively invoked. Of cardinal significance are backward blocking (BB), unovershadowing/retrospective revaluation (UnOv) (Le Pelley & McLaren, 2001;Miller & Witnauer, 2016;Urushihara & Miller, 2010), and sensory preconditioning (SPC) (Brogden, 1939;Ward-Robinson & Hall, 1996). Explaining these effects with a simple associative learning rule has been elusive, as they seem to result from opposite learning directions between the cues, retrieved and present.…”

Methods of comparing associative models and an application to retrospective revaluation

“…After training a target cue (X) in compound with a companion cue (A), associative inflation or deflation of A often results in changes in the response potential of the absent target cue (Kaufman & Bolles, 1981; for a review, see Miller & Witnauer, 2016). These retrospective revaluation effects are problematic for the original Rescorla-Wagner (1972) model (RWM), which does not allow for learning about absent cues.…”