Sensitivity to violations of "run" and "trill" structures in rat serial-pattern learning.

Fountain, Stephen B.; Rowan, James D.

doi:10.1037/0097-7403.21.1.78

Cited by 31 publications

(94 citation statements)

References 5 publications

(15 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In both violation pattern groups, intrusions on the violati9n element were consistent with overall pattern structure (viz., a "2" intrusion following the 81 series of Chunk 8 rather than the required "8" response). Thus, errors on violation elements conformed to the structure of the patterns in which they were embedded demonstrating that mice, like rats in an earlier study (Fountain & Rowan, 1995a), were sensitive to the organization of their pattern and mastered the rules governing the pattern before learning "exceptions-to-the-rule:' A particularly striking effect was the tendency of VU mice to make more errors than other groups on the second element of Chunk 1 (p < .05). They were also the only group to produce more errors on the second element than on the first element of Chunk 1.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 86%

“…Phrasing cues appeared to bias perception of the violation pattern for VP mice; the pattern was treated as a wholly "runs" pattern (like perfect patterns) resulting in a low overall error rate and few "8" intrusions on the second element of Chunk 1. Mice in all four groups, like rats and humans in earlier studies (Fountain & Rowan, 1995a, 1995b, produced errors that mapped onto the two-level hierarchical structure of their pattern. Mice in all groups produced significantly more errors on elements following chunk boundaries (Le., elements corresponding to the second-order rule transitions in the pattern structure) than on elements within chunks (corresponding to the first-order rule transitions) (p < .05).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For both groups, the digits indicate the clockwise position of the correct response in an 8-position circular array (cf. Fountain & Rowan, 1995a, 1995b, and the underlined and bolded digit is the violation element. It should be noted that in the circular array of the octagonal chamber, moving from Position 8 to Position 1 involves moving the same distance and direction around the circumference as moving "7" to "8" or "1" to "2," for example.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…They can also extrapolate known patterns to predict new items, and they can generalize structures from pattern to pattern to facilitate learning (Fountain & Hulse, 1981;Hulse & Dorsky, 1979). Another sign that rats are sensitive to pattern structure is the fact that they have great difficulty learning to respond appropriately to a pattern element or chunk that is an "exception-to-the-rule" (Fountain & Rowan, 1995a, 1995b.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In particular, rats can learn rules to encode patterns ranging from very simple to those having three or more levels of hierarchical structure (Fountain , 1990;Fountain, Evensen, & Hulse, 1983;Fountain & Rowan , 1995a, 1995bHulse, 1978;Hulse & Dorsky, 1977, 1979. They can also extrapolate known patterns to predict new items, and they can generalize structures from pattern to pattern to facilitate learning (Fountain & Hulse, 1981;Hulse & Dorsky, 1979).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Serial-Pattern Learning in Mice: Pattern Structure and Phrasing

1999

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In two experiments, mice learned 24-element serial patterns. In Experiment 1, patterns either were perfectly structured or had a single violation element and were either phrased by temporal pauses or unphrased. In Experiment 2, the same violation pattern of Experiment 1 was phrased by temporal cues, visual cues, or a combination of the two. For mice, as for rats and humans in earlier studies, pattern structure predicted pattern learning difficulty and also the nature and relative frequency of errors. Mice, like rats and humans , also found a violation element especially difficult to learn and at that point in the pattern made errors consistent with the structure of the remainder of the pattern . However, in both experiments, phrasing interfered with responding correctly on the element after the phrasing cue. In a third experiment, mice were able to use temporal intervals and, to a lesser degree, visual stimuli as discriminative cues to control spatial responses in the same apparatus used in earlier studies. The results support the view that mice are sensitive to pattern organization but may have difficulty using phrasing cues in the context of serial patterns.One of the fundamental questions in psychology is how animals organize behavior through time (Lashley, 1951), and thus a significant amount of comparative cognition research has focused on determining how animals learn about sequences of events and organize their responses to them. Sequential learning processes in species as different as humans, rhesus monkeys, rats, and pigeons appear to have a number of common features. For example, when animals must learn

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 86%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Serial-Pattern Learning in Mice: Pattern Structure and Phrasing

1999

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Concurrent cognitive processes in rat serial pattern learning: II. Discrimination learning, rule learning, chunk length, and multiple-item memories

Muller

Fountain

2016

Jrnl Exper Analysis Behavior

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The current experiment examined the factors that determine acquisition for elements of highly structured serial patterns. Three groups of rats were trained on three patterns with parallel rule-based hierarchical structure, but with 3-, 4-, or 5-element chunks, each with a final violation element. Once rats mastered their patterns, probe patterns were introduced to answer several questions. To assess the extent to which the learned response pattern depended on intrachamber location cues for anticipating different element types, Spatial Shift Probes shifted the starting lever of patterns to locations that positioned chunk boundaries where they had never been experienced during training. To assess the extent to which a phrasing cue is necessary for rats to perform a chunk-boundary response, a Cue Removal Probe tested whether rats would produce a chunk-boundary response in the correct serial position if the phrasing cue was omitted. To assess the extent to which cues from multiple trials leading up to the violation element are required to anticipate the violation element, Multiple-Item Memory Probes required rats to make an unexpected response on one of the elements in the last two chunks of the pattern prior to the violation element. The results indicated that rats used multiple concurrent learning and memory processes to master serial patterns, including discrimination learning, rule learning, encoding of chunk length, and multiple-item memories.

show abstract