Overshadowing and the outcome-alone exposure effect counteract each other

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes

Volumn 32, Issue 3, 2006, Pages 253-270

  Urushihara, Kouji ^a,b,c   Miller, Ralph R ^a  

^a BINGHAMTON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b OSAKA KYOIKU UNIVERSITY   (Japan)

^c JAPAN SOCIETY FOR THE PROMOTION OF SCIENCE   (Japan)

Author keywords

Compound cues; Cue competition; Outcome alone exposure effect; Overshadowing

Indexed keywords

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ANIMAL; ANIMAL BEHAVIOR; ARTICLE; ASSOCIATION; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONDITIONING; DISCRIMINATION LEARNING; FEMALE; INHIBITION (PSYCHOLOGY); LEARNING; MALE; PHYSIOLOGY; PSYCHOLOGICAL MODEL; RAT; REINFORCEMENT; SPRAGUE DAWLEY RAT; TIME;

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ANIMALS; ASSOCIATION LEARNING; BEHAVIOR, ANIMAL; CONDITIONING (PSYCHOLOGY); CUES; DISCRIMINATION LEARNING; EXTINCTION, PSYCHOLOGICAL; FEMALE; INHIBITION (PSYCHOLOGY); MALE; MODELS, PSYCHOLOGICAL; RATS; RATS, SPRAGUE-DAWLEY; REINFORCEMENT SCHEDULE; TIME FACTORS;

EID: 33746606110     PISSN: 00977403     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/0097-7403.32.3.253     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Annau, Z., & Kamin, L. T. (1961). The conditioned emotional response as a function of intensity of the US. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 51, 128-132.
2. Baker, A. G., & Mackintosh, N. J. (1979). Preexposure to the CS alone, US alone, or CS and US uncorrelated: Latent inhibition, blocking by the context or learned irrelevance? Learning and Motivation, 10, 278-294.
3. 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.
4. Bouton, M. E. (1993). Context, time, and memory retrieval in the interference paradigms of Pavlovian learning. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 80-99.
5. Bouton, M. E. (1997). Signals for whether versus when an event will occur. In M. E. Bouton & M. S. Fanslow (Eds.), Learning, motivation, and cognition. The functional behaviorism of Robert C. Bolles (pp. 335-409). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
6. Bush, R. R., & Mosteller, F. (1951). A mathematical model for simple learning. Psychological Review, 58, 313-323.
7. Coleman, D. A., Jr., Hemmes, N. S., & Brown, B. L. (1986). Relative durations of conditioned stimulus and intertrial interval in conditioned suppression. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 46, 51-66.
8. De Houwer, J., & Beckers, T. (2002). Higher-order retrospective revaluation in human causal learning. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 55(B), 137-151.
9. Denniston, J. C., Miller, R. R., & Matute, H. (1996). Biological significance as a determinant of cue competition. Psychological Science, 7, 325-331.
10. Denniston, J. C., Savastano, H. I., Blaisdell, A. P., & Miller, R. R. (2003). Cue competition as a retrieval deficit. Learning and Motivation, 34, 1-31.
11. Denniston, J. C., Savastano, H. I., & Miller, R. R. (2001). The extended comparator hypothesis: Learning by contiguity, responding by relative strength. In R. R. Mowrer & S. B. Klein (Eds.), Handbook of contemporary learning theories (pp. 65-1.17). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
12. Gallistel, C. R., & Gibbon, J. (2000). Time, rate, and conditioning. Psychological Review, 107, 289-344.
13. Gibbon, J., Baldock, M. D., Locurto, C., Gold, L., & Terrace, H. S. (1977). Trial and intertrial durations in autoshaping. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 3, 264-284.
14. 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.
15. Kamin, L. J. (1965). Temporal and intensity characteristics of the conditioned stimulus. In W. F. Prokasy (Ed.), Classical conditioning (pp. 118-147). New York: Appleton.
16. Konorski, J., & Szwejkowska, G. (1952). Chronic extinction and restoration of conditioned reflexes: IV. The dependence of the course of extinction and restoration of conditioned reflexes on the "history" of the conditioned stimulus (the principle of the primacy of first training). Acta Biologiae Experimentalis, 16, 95-113.
17. Kraemer, P. J., Lariviere, N. A., & Spear, N. E. (1988). Expression of a laste aversion conditioned with an odor-taste compound: Overshadowing is relatively weak in weanlings and decreases over a retention interval in adults. Animal Learning & Behavior, 16, 164-168.
18. Lubow, R. E., & Moore, A. U. (1959). Latent inhibition: The effect of nonreinforced preexposure to the conditioned stimulus. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 52, 415-419.
19. Maier, S. F., Jackson, R. L., & Tomie, A. (1987). Potentiation, overshadowing, and prior exposure to inescapable shock. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 13, 260-270.
20. Miller, J. S., Jagielo, J. A., & Spear, N. E. (1990). Changes in the retrievability of associations to elements of the compound CS determine the expression of overshadowing. Animal Learning & Behavior, 18, 157-161.
21. Miller, R. R., Hallam, S. C., & Grahame, N. J. (1990). Inflation of comparator stimuli following CS training. Animal Learning & Behavior, 18, 434-443.
22. 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). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
23. Mis, F. W., & Moore, J. W. (1973). Effect of preacquisition UCS exposure on classical conditioning of the rabbit's nictitating membrane response. Learning and Motivation, 4, 108-114.
24. Pavlov, I. P. (1927). Conditioned reflexes: An investigation of the physiological activities of the cerebral cortex. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
25. Pearce, J. M., & Hall, G. (1980). A model for Pavlovian conditioning: Variations in the effectiveness of conditioned but not unconditioned stimulus. Psychological Review, 87, 532-552.
26. Randich, A. (1981). The US preexposure phenomenon in the conditioned suppression paradigm: A role for conditioned situational stimulus. Learning and Motivation, 12, 321-341.
27. Randich, A., & LoLordo, V. M. (1979). Associative and non-associative theories of the UCS preexposure phenomenon: Implications for Pavlovian conditioning. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 523-548.
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. (1973). Effect of US habituation following conditioning. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 85, 331-338.
30. 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.
31. 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: Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 56(B), 371-395.
32. Savastano, H. I., & Miller, R. R. (2003). Biological significance and posttraining changes in conditioned responding, Learning and Motivation, 34, 303-324.
33. Stout, S. C., Amundson, J. C., & Miller, R. R. (in press). Trial order and retention interval in human contingency judgment. Memory & Cognition.
34. Stout, S. C., Chang, R., & Miller, R. R. (2003). Trial spacing as a determinant of cue competition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 29, 23-38.
35. Stout, S. C., & Miller, R. R. (2006). SOCR: A mathematical implementation of the extended comparator hypothesis. Manuscript submitted for publication.
36. Urcelay, G. P., & Miller, R. R. (2006). Counteraction of overshadowing and degraded contingency treatments: Support for the extended comparator hypothesis. Journal of Experimental. Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 32, 21-32.
37. 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, 268-271.
38. Urushihara, K., Wheeler, D. S., & Miller, R. R. (2004). Outcome pre- and post-exposure effects: Retention interval interacts with primacy and recency. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 30, 283-298.
39. Urushihara, K., Wheeler, D. S., Pineño, O., & Miller, R. R. (2005). An extended comparator hypothesis account of superconditioning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 31, 184-198.
40. Wagner, A. R. (1981). SOP: A model of autonomic memory processing in animal behavior. In N. H. Spear & R. R. Miller (Eds.), Information processing in animals: Memory mechanisms (pp. 1-47). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
41. Wheeler, D. S., Stout, S. C., & Miller, R. R. (2004). Interaction of retention interval with CS-preexposure and extinction treatment: Symmetry with respect to primacy. Learning & Behavior, 32, 335-347.