Savings tests: Separating differences in rate of learning from differences in initial levels.

Abstract

Three experiments used a Pavlovian magazine-approach procedure in rats to explore, in 3 theoretically interesting cases, the inferences made from savings tests. In each experiment, a compound test procedure allowed the separation of differences in rate of acquiring new associative learning from differences in initial level of associative strength. Experiment 1 found that the slower acquisition after prior nonreinforced exposure (latent inhibition) reflected differences in learning rate, not initial level. By contrast, Experiments 2 and 3 found that the higher performance observed to a previously trained and extinguished stimulus, and lower performance observed to a conditioned inhibitor, both arose primarily because of differences in initial associative value. These experiments illustrate the usefulness of a novel testing procedure in sharpening the conclusions from savings procedures.

Pro-Cognitive and Antipsychotic Efficacy of the α7 Nicotinic Partial Agonist SSR180711 in Pharmacological and Neurodevelopmental Latent Inhibition Models of Schizophrenia

“…Because non-reinforced pre-exposure retards any associative learning in which the pre-exposed stimulus is subsequently engaged, the common interpretation is that such preexposure reduces the salience of, or attention to, the preexposed stimulus (Rescorla, 2002), which under specific conditions can reduce the efficacy with which the stimulus acquires behavioral control when paired with reinforcement (Bouton, 1993;Gray et al, 1991;Lubow, 2005;Weiner, 1990Weiner, , 2003. In this manner, LI allows the organism to ignore irrelevant stimuli and to selectively attend to important/ relevant stimuli.…”

Evaluating conditioning of related and unrelated stimuli using a compound test

“…Any differences in test responding to the compound, after conditioning, that depend on which element was paired with the US, must then reflect differences in the amount of learning that resulted from that pairing. In this particular case, Rescorla (2002) found that the inhibitor in fact gained more associative strength than did the neutral stimulus when each received the same number of pairings with the US. This suggests that the typical observation of less responding to the inhibitor than to the neutral stimulus is attributable not to slower learning by the inhibitor but rather to its lower starting point.…”

“…Recently, Rescorla (2002) described a testing technique that addresses these measurement problems of differential starting point and nonlinear mapping into performance. He has used this technique to distinguish different rates of learning from different starting points for a number of other cases of associative learning.…”

“…Clearly, one cannot simply examine responding to the stimuli themselves, since they are known to begin with different associative strengths; indeed, the inhibitor presumably has a negative associative strength that is not well measured because of a performance threshold. Instead, Rescorla (2002) examined responding to the compound of the inhibitor and the neutral stimulus after one or the other had been paired with the US. Prior to conditioning, the compound has the same initial total associative strength, and responding to that compound is subject to the same threshold, whichever of the two elements is to be subsequently paired with the US.…”

A Cognitive Model for Generalization during Sequential Learning

“…Animals are faster to reacquire an extinguished behavior, as compared to initial acquisition, and they are faster to extinguish a reacquired behavior, as compared to initial extinction [39][40][41][42][43][44]. A randomly initialized network was trained to respond upon the presentation of a pattern.…”