BLP Exam 2

a surprise

(λ - V

overshadowing results

A elicits CR, but X (less salient) does not

latent inhibition (CS pre-exposure effect) procedure ph 2

all groups get L+

sensory preconditioning Ph 2

all groups get tone and food

blocking procedure ph 2

all grps get BY+

US pre-exposure effect ph 2

all subjects get CS---> US trials

Colwill and Rescorla- devaluation of the US experiment procedure ph 1

all subjects get CS-US training

taste aversion learning

contiguity is lacking; hours between CS and US; yet learning occurs

latent inhibition (CS pre-exposure effect) significance (1)

exposure to L prior to training makes L more resistant to becoming a conditioned excitor later on

Garcia significance (4)

external CSs are more likely to be associated with external USs

Colwill and Rescorla- devaluation of the US experiment procedure ph 2

gr 1 gets US alone; gr 2 gets nothing

overshadowing procedure ph 1

grp 1 and grp 2 are the control groups grp 3 gets AX+

US pre-exposure effect results

grp 1 develops the CR slower than grp 2

blocking procedure ph 1

grp 1 gets B+ grp 2 gets nothing

latent inhibition (CS pre-exposure effect) procedure ph 1

grp 1 gets L alone, grp 2 gets nothing

US pre-exposure effect procedure ph 1

grp 1 gets US alone, grp 2 gets nothing

sensory preconditioning results

grp 1 has a CR grp 2 does not

latent inhibition (CS pre-exposure effect) results

grp 1 takes longer to develop the CR than grp 2

Garcia procedure

grp 1: size- illness grp 2: taste- illness grp 3: size- shock grp 4: taste-shock

Garcia results

grps 2 and 3 learned the CS-US association grps 1 and 4 did not

US pre-exposure effect significance

habituation to the US before training weakens its ability to support learning

Kamin's theory of surprise

must have contiguity and surprise to get learning

Mackintosh and Sutherland assumption (1)

organisms have a limited attentional capacity

Mackintosh and Sutherland assumption (3)

to learn about a stimulus, you must attend to it

what is sensory preconditioning testing?

to see if light elicits a conditioned response

what is overshadowing testing?

to see whether subjects A and X (separately) elicit the CR

Rescorla-Wagner model

unifying theory

overshadowing

A >>>>> X A is much more salient than X

conditioned inhibition procedure ph 1

A+

conditioned inhibition procedure ph 2

A+, AX-

what is blocking testing?

tests to see if Y elicits CR

Rescorla (random US experiment) p (US/CS) >>> p(US/no CS)

CS is a signal for the US, excitatory learning

Rescorla (random US experiment) p(US/CS)<<< p(US/ no CS)

CS is a signal that there is no US, inhibitory learning

test for Pavlovian Conditioning (1)

Colwill and Rescorla- devaluation of the US experiment

sensory preconditioning Ph 1

Grp 1: gets light and tone Grp 2: gets nothing

latent inhibition (CS pre-exposure effect) significance

L is NOT a conditioned inhibitor- fails summation tests

Information account of learning

Rescorla (random US experiment

ΔV = ⍺β(λ - V)

Rescorla- Wagner model

Mathematically captured Kami's idea of surprise

Rescorla-Wagner model

what you expect to get when you see the CS

V

conditioned inhibition results (2)

X is the conditioned inhibitor (it inhibits the CR)

blocking results (1)

Y elicits CR in grp 2, but not for grp 1

sensory preconditioning significance (1)

animals can make S-S associations during phase 1

omission control procedure results

animals cycle between acquisition and extinction

conditioned inhibition results

animals develop a CR to A when A is presented alone but the CR to A is inhibited

biological constraints

assumed "general laws of learning" Garcia experiments

are learning principles the same across species and paradigms?

assumed principle: contiguity is necessary for learning to occur

Attentional account can explain

blocking and overshadowing

Garcia experiments

challenged the assumed "general laws of learning"

expansion of the opponent-process model

conditioned compensatory responses

explains drug tolerance, withdrawal, and overdosing

conditioned compensatory responses

what is learned in Pavlovian Conditioning? (option 2)

during conditioning, the US endows the CS with the ability to directly elicit the CR S-R association after conditioning: CS--> CR (US is no longer in the mix)

test for Pavlovian Conditioning (2)

how does each group respond to the CS?

what omission control procedure testing (1)?

if animals can control CR (salivation), then they should inhibit it during the bell so that they would get the food

what omission control procedure testing (2)?

if animals cannot control CR, then the results should cycle between acquisition and extinction

omission control procedure (1)

if bell ---> no salivation, then receive food

omission control procedure (2)

if bell---> salivation, then receive no food

Garcia significance (3)

internal CSs are more likely to be associated with internal USs

is contiguity sufficient for learning to occur?

no

Rescorla (random US experiment) p(US/CS)=== p(US/no CS)

no information, no learning

can subjects control the CR in Pavlovian Conditioning?

omission control procedure

violations

overshadowing, blocking, random US experiment

Garcia significance (1)

parts are not interchangeable

what do the Colwill and Rescorla results indicate?

that learning is S-S in nature

blocking results (2)

prior conditioning to B blocks learning about Y in B's presence

sensory preconditioning significance (2)

reinforcement is not necessary for learning to take place

Garia significance (2)

some associations are more biologically prepared than others

Garcia wanted to know if

the 'parts' are interchangeable

overshadowing significance

stimuli compete for our attention, the more salient CS wins

blocking significance

subjects appear to only learn about signal when it provides new information

assumed "general laws of learning"

the 'parts' are interchangeable principles are general across learning paradigms and species

two tests of inhibition/ inferring inhibition

summation test and retardation test

Garcia discovered

taste aversion learning

contiguity is a relative term

taste aversion learning allows for longer CS-US interval difference is quantitative not qualitative

Colwill and Rescorla results

the CR is grp 1 is reduced devaluation of the US after conditioning reduces the Cr

what is learned in Pavlovian Conditioning? (option 1)

the CS and the US become associated during conditioning S-S association after conditioning: CS--> mental thought of US--> CR

Mackintosh and Sutherland assumption (2)

we can only fully attend to one thing at a time

is contiguity necessary for learning to occur?

yes

the US - what you get (e.g., shock)

λ