Counteraction between overshadowing and degraded contingency treatments: Support for the extended comparator hypothesis

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes

Volumn 32, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 21-32

  Urcelay, Gonzalo P ^a   Miller, Ralph R ^a  

^a BINGHAMTON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Degraded contingency; Extended comparator hypothesis; Overshadowing; Pavlovian conditioning; Retrospective revaluation

Indexed keywords

ANIMAL; ANIMAL BEHAVIOR; ARTICLE; CONDITIONED REFLEX; FEMALE; MALE; PHYSIOLOGY; PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORY; RANDOMIZATION; RAT; REINFORCEMENT; SPRAGUE DAWLEY RAT;

ANIMALS; BEHAVIOR, ANIMAL; CONDITIONING, CLASSICAL; EXTINCTION, PSYCHOLOGICAL; FEMALE; MALE; PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORY; RANDOM ALLOCATION; RATS; RATS, SPRAGUE-DAWLEY;

EID: 31344456398     PISSN: 00977403     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/0097-7403.32.1.21     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Blaisdell, A. P., Bristol, A. S., Gunther, L. M., & Miller, R. R. (1998). Overshadowing and latent inhibition counteract each other: Support for the comparator hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 24, 335-351.
2. Denniston, J. C., Miller, R. R., & Matute, H. (1996). Biological significance as a determinant of cue competition. Psychological Science, 7, 325-331.
3. Denniston, J. C., Savastano, H. I., & Miller, R. R. (2001). The extended comparator hypothesis: Learning by contiguity, responding by relative strength. In R. R. Mower & S. B. Klein (Eds.), Handbook of contemporary learning theories (pp. 65-117). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
4. Dickinson, A., & Burke, J. (1996). Within-compound associations mediate the retrospective revaluation of causality judgments. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 36A, 29-50.
5. Durlach, P. J. (1983). Effect of signaling intertrial unconditioned stimuli in autoshaping. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 9, 374-389.
6. Durlach, P. J. (1984). The effect of intertrial conditioned stimuli in autoshaping. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 36B, 353-369.
7. Grahame, N. J., Barnet, R. C., & Miller, R. R. (1992). Pavlovian conditioning in multiple contexts: Competition between contexts for comparator status. Animal Learning & Behavior, 20, 329-338.
8. Gunther, L. M., & Miller, R. R. (2000). Prevention of the degraded-contingency effect by signaling training trials. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 53B, 97-119.
9. Holland, P. C. (1999). Overshadowing and blocking as acquisition deficits: No recovery after extinction of overshadowing or blocking cues. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 52B, 307-333.
10. 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.
11. Kaplan, P. S., & Hearst, E. (1985). Contextual control and excitatory versus inhibitory learning: Studies of extinction, reinstatement, and interference. In P. D. Balsam & A. Tomie (Eds.), Context and learning (pp. 195-224). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
12. Kaufman, M. A., & Bolles, R. C. (1981). A nonassociative aspect of overshadowing. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 18, 318-320.
13. Lasiter, P. S., & Braun, J. J. (1981). Shock facilitation of taste aversion learning. Behavioral and Neural Biology, 32, 277-281.
14. Loy, I., & Hall, G. (2002). Taste aversion after ingestion of lithium chloride: An associative analysis. Quaterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55B, 365-380.
15. Lubow, R. E. (1973). Latent inhibition. Psychological Bulletin, 79, 398-407.
16. Mackintosh, N. J. (1975). A theory of attention: Variations in the associability of stimuli with reinforcement. Psychological Review, 82, 276-298.
17. Matzel, L. D., Schachtman, T. R., & Miller, R. R. (1985). Recovery of an overshadowed association achieved by extinction of the overshadowing stimulus. Learning and Motivation, 16, 398-412.
18. 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, 12(4), 370-386.
19. Pearce, J. M. (1987). A model for stimulus generalization in Pavlovian conditioning. Psychological Review, 94, 61-73.
20. Pearce, J. M., & Hall, G. (1980). A model for Pavlovian learning: Variations in the effectiveness of conditioned but not of unconditioned stimuli. Psychological Review, 87, 532-552.
21. Rescorla, R. A. (1966). Predictability and number of pairings in Pavlovian fear conditioning. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 4, 383-384.
22. 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.
23. 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.
24. Rusiniak, K., Hankins, W., Garcia, J., & Brett, L. (1979). Flavor-illness aversions: Potentiation of odor by taste in rats. Behavioral and Neural Biology, 25, 1-17.
25. Savastano, H. I., Arcediano, F., Stout, S. C., & Miller, R. R. (2003). Interaction between preexposure and overshadowing: Further analysis of the extended comparator hypothesis. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 56B, 371-395.
26. Savastano, H. I., & Miller, R. R. (2003). Biological significance and posttraining changes in conditioned responding. Learning and Motivation, 34, 303-324.
27. Stout, S. C., Chang, R., & Miller, R. R. (2003). Trial spacing is a determinant of cue interaction. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 29, 23-28.
28. Stout, S. C., & Miller, R. R. (2005). Sometimes opponent retrieval (SOCR): A mathematical implementation of the extended comparator hypothesis. Manuscript submitted for publication.
29. Urushihara, K., Stout, S. C., & Miller, R. R. (2004). The basic laws of conditioning differ for elemental cues and cues trained in compound. Psychological Science, 15(4), 268-271.
30. 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.
31. Wagner, A. R. (1981). SOP: A model of automatic memory processing in animal behavior. In N. E. Spear & R. R. Miller (Eds.), Information processing in animals: Memory mechanisms (pp. 5-47). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.