Stimulus change, reversal learning, and retention in the rat.

Chiszar, David; Spear, Norman E.

doi:10.1037/h0027947

Cited by 37 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Chiszar and Spear (1969) reported a similar observation in a rat study in which a spatial reversal was carried out in the same T-maze or in a different one.…”

Section: Methodssupporting

confidence: 62%

Interference in pigeons’ long-term memory viewed as a retrieval problem

Thomas

McKelvie

Ranney

et al. 1981

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Chiszar and Spear (1969) reported a similar observation in a rat study in which a spatial reversal was carried out in the same T-maze or in a different one.…”

Section: Methodssupporting

confidence: 62%

Interference in pigeons’ long-term memory viewed as a retrieval problem

Thomas

McKelvie

Ranney

et al. 1981

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Both areas were reported to be rich in extramaze cues, which served to differentiate the two contexts. Both Chiszar and Spear (1969) and Zentall (1970) have demonstrated that the use of differentiated contexts for original and interpolated learning leads to reduction of RI for retention of spatial habits, relative to habits learned in the same context. Therefore, we might expect that runs given on radial mazes in similar contexts might yield evidence of RI.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…If rats are trained to go to one side of aT-maze until this habit is established and then are trained to go to the opposite side of the same maze, strong RI is found when the first habit is relearned (Chiszar & Spear, 1969;Crowder, 1967;Frankmann, 1957;Zentall, 1970).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Retroactive inhibition in rat spatial memory

Roberts

1981

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two experiments were carried out in which rats first were given four forced choices on an eight-arm radial maze, then were given interpolated maze experiences, and finally were given a free choice retention test on the first maze. In Experiment 1, interpolated experiences consisted of forced choices made on one, two, or three other mazes, each placed in a different room. Retroactive inhibition (RI) was not found with one and two interpolated mazes but was found with three interpolated mazes. In Experiments 2a and 2b, an attempt was made to produce RI within a single context by using two mazes placed side by side or on top of one another and by using interpolated forced choices that were different, random, or the same with respect to forced choices on Maze 1. These conditions failed to yield any evidence of RI. In Experiment 2c, forced choices were followed by interpolated direct placements on the same maze on different, random, or the same maze arms, and retention tests revealed RI under these conditions. It was concluded that rats encode memories of specific places visited in space and that RI will arise only if (1) memory is greatly overloaded with interpolate,d information or (2) an interpolated visit is made to exactly that position in space to which an animal must travel in order to achieve a correct choice on the retention test.Recent studies of spatial memory in the rat using the radial maze have revealed a surprising excellence of performance (Olton, 1977(Olton, , 1978(Olton, , 1979. After freely exploring part of a radial maze or being forced to enter some arms of the maze, rats will choose very accurately only arms not previously visited. Spatial memory appears to be large in capacity, since rats have been found to be able to keep track of visits to as many as 17 (Olton, Collison, & Werz, 1977) or 32 (Roberts, 1979) places. Also, spatial memory has been found to persist with little loss in accuracy over retention intervals as long as 4 h (Beatty & Shavalia, 1980a, 1980b.It has been suggested also that spatial memory may be impervious to interference. Olton (1977Olton ( , 1978 has tested rats with multiple trials run within a session. When accuracy was plotted as a function of choices within a trial, it was found that nearly errorless performance appeared at the initial choices of each trial. Olton concluded that rats reset their working memory between trials by deleting its contents, and hence each trial in the series was, protected from proactive inhibition (PI) from the preceding trials. Roberts and Dale (1981) procedure and found a decline in retention across trials that was more marked at a 6O-sec delay between forced and free choices than at a O-sec delay. These data indicate PI effects across trials and agree with the well-known finding of a stronger PI effect at a longer retention interval.

show abstract

“…These findings are consistent with what is known about the effects of retention interval in other interference paradigms. Retention intervals introduced following Phase 2 cause spontaneous recovery of Phase 1 perfonnance after extinction; they can also cause recovery of Phase 1 performance in human verbal interference (see, e.g., Postman, Stark, & Fraser, 1968;Underwood, 1948aUnderwood, , 1948b and in animal discrimination reversal learning (see, e.g., Chiszar & Spear, 1969;Gleitman, 1971;Gordon & Spear, 1973;Spear et al, 1980). The latter two paradigms may be especially consistent with the present data, because they also suggest that performance from Phase 2 is also resuppressed-that is, that proactive interference recovers over time, in similar settings.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Spontaneous recovery in cross-motivational transfer (counterconditioning)

Bouton

Peck

1992

Animal Learning & Behavior

122

125

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In two experiments with rat subjects, we examined the effects of a retention interval on performance in two conditioning paradigms in which a conditioned stimulus (CS) was associated with different unconditioned stimuli (USs) in successive phases of the experiment. Experiment 1 was designed to examine aversive-appetitive transfer, in which the CS is associated with shock and then food; Experiment 2 was designed to examine appetitive-aversive transfer, in which the CS is associated with food and then shock. Aversive and appetitive conditioned responses (freezing and head-jerk responding, respectively) were scored from videotape. In both experiments, a 28-day retention interval following the end of Phase 2 caused a recovery of the Phase 1 response and a resuppression of the Phase 2 response. The results suggest that the original association is not destroyed when the CS is associated with a new US in Phase 2. They also suggest that both retroactive and proactive interference effects may result from interference with performance output rather than a disruption or loss of what is learned during or stored from the target phase.The present article is concerned with two conditioning paradigms in which a conditioned stimulus (CS) is paired with different unconditioned stimuli (USs) in successive phases of the experiment. In aversive-to-appetitive transfer, the CS is associated with an aversive US (e.g., shock) in an initial phase and then an appetitive US (e.g., food or water) in a second phase. In appetitive-to-aversive transfer, the CS is first paired with an appetitive US and then an aversive US. In either case, the CS comes to evoke responding appropriate to the second US by the end of the second phase (see, e.g., Bromage

show abstract

Stimulus change, reversal learning, and retention in the rat.

Cited by 37 publications

References 11 publications

Interference in pigeons’ long-term memory viewed as a retrieval problem

Interference in pigeons’ long-term memory viewed as a retrieval problem

Retroactive inhibition in rat spatial memory

Spontaneous recovery in cross-motivational transfer (counterconditioning)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About