Prevention of the degraded-contingency effect by signalling training trials

Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section B: Comparative and Physiological Psychology

Volumn 53, Issue 2, 2000, Pages 97-119

  Gunther, Lisa M ^b   Miller, Ralph R ^a  

^a BINGHAMTON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b SUNY Binghamton ^*

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANIMAL; ARTICLE; ASSOCIATION; CONDITIONED REFLEX; FEMALE; INHIBITION (PSYCHOLOGY); LEARNING; MALE; PERCEPTION; PSYCHOLOGICAL MODEL; RAT; REINFORCEMENT; SPRAGUE DAWLEY RAT;

ANIMALS; ASSOCIATION LEARNING; CONDITIONING, CLASSICAL; CUES; FEMALE; INHIBITION (PSYCHOLOGY); MALE; MODELS, PSYCHOLOGICAL; PERCEPTUAL MASKING; RATS; RATS, SPRAGUE-DAWLEY; REINFORCEMENT (PSYCHOLOGY);

EID: 0034182326     PISSN: 02724995     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/713932719     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Barnet, R.C., Grahame, N.J., & Miller, R.R. (1993). Local time horizons in Pavlovian learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 19, 215-230.
2. Blanchard, R., & Honig, W.K. (1976). Surprise value of food determines its effectiveness as a reinforcer. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 2, 67-74.
3. Cooper, L.D. (1991). Temporal factors in classical conditioning. Learning and Motivation, 22, 129-152.
4. Cooper, L.D., Aronson, L., Balsam, P.D., & Gibbon, J. (1990). Duration of signals for intertrial reinforcement and nonreinforcement in random control procedures. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 16, 14-26.
5. Denniston, J.C., Miller, R.R., & Matute, H. (1996). Biological significance as a determinant of cue competition. Psychological Science, 7, 325-331.
6. Denniston, J.C., Savastano, H.I., & Miller, R.R. (in press). The extended comparator hypothesis: Learning by contiguity, responding by relative strength. In R.R. Mowrer & S.B. Klein (Eds.), Handbook of contemporary learning theories. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
7. Dickinson, A., & Burke, J. (1996). Within-compound associations mediate the retrospective revaluations of causality judgments. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 48B, 60-80.
8. Durlach, P.J. (1982). Pavlovian learning and performance when a CS and US are uncorrelated. In M. Commons, R.J. Herrnstein, & A.R. Wagner (Eds.), Quantitative analysis of behavior: Acquisition (Vol. 3, pp. 173-193). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
9. Durlach, P.J. (1983). Effect of signalling intertrial unconditioned stimuli in autoshaping. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 9, 374-389.
10. Gamzu, E., & Williams, D.R. (1973). Associative factors underlying the pigeon's keypecking in auto-shaping procedures. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 19, 225-232.
11. Gerolin, M., & Matute, H. (1999). Bidirectional associations. Animal Learning & Behavior, 27, 42-49.
12. Gibbon, J., & Balsam, P.D. (1981). Spreading associations in time. In C.M. Locurto, H.S. Terrace, & J. Gibbon (Eds.), Autoshaping and conditioning theory (pp. 219-253). New York: Academic Press.
13. Gibbon, J., Locurto, C., & Terrace, H. (1975). Signal-food contingency and signal frequency in a continuous trials auto-shaping paradigm. Animal Learning & Behavior, 3, 317-324.
14. Gunther, L.M., Denniston, J.C., & Miller, R.R. (1998). Renewal of comparator stimuli. Learning and Motivation, 29, 200-219.
15. Hume, D. (1964). Treatise on human nature (L.A. Selby-Bigge, Ed.). London: Oxford University Press. (Original work published 1739.)
16. Jenkins, H.M., Barnes, R.A., & Barrera, F.J. (1981). Why autoshaping depends on trial spacing. In C.M. Locurto, H.S. Terrace, & J. Gibbon (Eds.), Autoshaping and conditioning theory (pp. 255-284). New York: Academic Press.
17. Kamin, L.J. (1969). Selective association and conditioning. In N.J. Mackintosh & W.K. Honig (Eds.), Fundamental issues in associative learning (pp. 42-64). Halifax: Dalhousie University Press.
18. Mackintosh, N.J. (1975). A theory of attention: Variations in the associability of stimuli with reinforcement. Psychological Review, 82, 276-298.
19. Miller, R.R., Hallam, S.C., & Grahame, N.J. (1990). Inflation of comparator stimuli following CS training. Animal Learning & Behavior, 18, 434-443.
20. Miller, R.R., & Matute, H. (1996). Biological significance in forward and backward blocking: Resolution of a discrepancy between animal conditioning and human causal judgment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 125, 370-386.
21. Miller, R.R., & Matzel, L.D. (1988). The comparator hypothesis: A response rule for the expression of associations. In G.H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 22, pp. 51-92). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
22. Miller, R.R., & Schachtman, T.R. (1985). Conditioning context as an associative baseline: Implications for response generation and the nature of conditioned inhibition. In R.R. Miller & N.E. Spear (Eds.), Information processing in animals: Conditioned inhibition (pp. 51-88). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
23. Oberling, P., Bristol, A., Matute, H., & Miller, R.R. (1999). Biological significance in cue competition. Manuscript submitted for publication.
24. Pearce, J.M. (1987). A model for stimulus generalization in Pavlovian conditioning. Psychological Review, 94, 61-73.
25. Pearce, J.M., & Hall, G. (1980). A model for Pavlovian learning: Variations in the effectiveness of conditioned but not unconditioned stimuli. Psychological Review, 87, 532-552.
26. Randich, A., & Ross, R.T. (1984). Mechanisms of blocking by contextual stimuli. Learning and Motivation, 10, 245-277.
27. Rescorla, R.A. (1966). Predictability and number of pairings in Pavlovian fear conditioning. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 4, 383-384.
28. Rescorla, R.A. (1968). Probability of shock in the presence and absence of CS in fear conditioning. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 66, 1-5.
29. Rescorla, R.A. (1971). Variation in effectiveness of reinforcement following prior inhibitory conditioning. Learning and Motivation, 2, 113-123.
30. Rescorla, R.A. (1981). Simultaneous associations. In P. Harzem & M.D. Zeiler (Eds.), Predictability, correlation, and contiguity (pp. 47-80). New York: Wiley.
31. Rescorla, R.A. (1984). Signaling intertrial shocks attenuates their negative effect on conditioned suppression. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 22, 225-228.
32. Rescorla, R.A., & Wagner, A.R. (1972). A theory of Pavlovian conditioning: Variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and nonreinforcement. In A.H. Black & W.F. Prokasy (Eds.), Classical conditioning II: Current research and theory (pp. 64-99). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
33. Rizley, R.C., & Rescorla, R.A. (1972). Associations in second-order conditioning and sensory preconditioning. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 81, 1-11.
34. Van Hamme, L.J., & Wasserman, E.A. (1994). Cue competition in causality judgments: The role of nonpresentation of compound stimulus elements. Learning and Motivation, 25, 127-151.
35. Westbrook, R.F., Duffield, T.Q., Good, A.J., Halligan, S., Seth, A.K., & Swinbourne, A.L. (1995). Extinction of within-event learning is contextually controlled and subject to renewal. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 48B, 357-375.
36. Williams, B.A. (1994). Contingency theory and the effect of the duration of signals for noncontingent reinforcement. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 1, 111-114.
37. Williams, D.A., Sagness, K.E., & McPhee, J.E. (1994). Configurai and elemental strategies in predictive learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 20, 694-709.