Discrimination blocking: Acquisition versus performance deficits in human contingency learning

Learning and Behavior

Volumn 35, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 149-162

  Castro, Leyre ^a,b   Wasserman, Edward A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF IOWA   (United States)

^b University of Iowa   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONDITIONING; CONTROLLED STUDY; DISCRIMINATION LEARNING; DISCRIMINATIVE STIMULUS; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; LEARNING; TASK PERFORMANCE; TRAINING;

EID: 34548621759     PISSN: 15434494     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/BF03193050     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. ALLAN, L. G. (1993). Human contingency judgments: Rule based or associative? Psychological Bulletin, 114, 435-448.
2. BALAZ, M. A., KASPROW, W. J., & MILLER, R. R. (1982). Blocking with a single compound trial. Animal Learning & Behavior, 10, 271-276.
3. BLAISDELL, A. P., GUNTHER, L. M., & MILLER, R. R. (1999). Recovery from blocking achieved by extinguishing the blocking CS. Animal Learning & Behavior, 27, 63-76.
4. DENNISTON, J. C., SAVASTANO, H. I., BLAISDELL, A. P., & MILLER, R. R. (2003). Cue competition as a retrieval deficit. Learning & Motivation, 34, 1-31.
5. 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. 65-117). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
6. DICKINSON, A., & BURKE, J. (1996). Within-compound associations mediate the retrospective revaluation of causality judgements. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49B, 60-80.
7. JOHNSON, D. F., & CUMMING, W. W. (1968). Some determiners of attention. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 11, 157-166.
8. KAMIN, L. J. (1968). "Attention-like" processes in classical conditioning. In M. R. Jones (Ed.), Miami symposium on the prediction of behavior: Aversive stimulation (pp. 9-31). Miami: University of Miami Press.
9. MACKINTOSH, N. J. (1975a). Blocking of conditioned suppression: Role of the first compound trial. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 1, 335-345.
10. MACKINTOSH, N. J. (1975b). A theory of attention: Variations in the associability of stimuli with reinforcement. Psychological Review, 82, 276-298.
11. MCLAREN, I. P. L., & MACKINTOSH, N. J. (2000). An elemental model of associative learning: I. Latent inhibition and perceptual learning. Animal Learning & Behavior, 28, 211-246.
12. MCLAREN, I. P. L., & MACKINTOSH, N. J. (2002). Associative learning and elemental representation: II. Generalization and discrimination. Animal Learning & Behavior, 30, 177-200.
13. 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: Academic Press.
14. PEARCE, J. M. (1987). A model for stimulus generalization in Pavlovian conditioning. Psychological Review, 94, 61-73.
15. PEARCE, J. M. (1994). Similarity and discrimination: A selective review and a connectionist model. Psychological Review, 101, 587-607.
16. PEARCE, J. M. (2002). Evaluation and development of a connectionist theory of configural learning. Animal Learning & Behavior, 30, 73-95.
17. 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.
18. POSTMAN, L. (1968). Association and performance in the analysis of verbal learning. In T. R. Dixon & D. L. Horton (Eds.), Verbal behavior and general behavior theory (pp. 550-571). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
19. RAUHUT, A. S., MCPHEE, J. E., & AYRES, J. J. B. (1999). Blocked and overshadowed stimuli are weakened in their ability to serve as blockers and second-order reinforcers in Pavlovian fear conditioning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 25, 45-67.
20. 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.
21. SHANKS, D. R. (1995). The psychology of associative learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
22. VAN HAMME, L. J., & WASSERMAN, E. A. (1994). Cue competition in causality judgments: The role of nonpresentation of compound stimulus elements. Learning & Motivation, 25, 127-151.
23. WILLIAMS, B. A. (1996). Evidence that blocking is due to associative deficit: Blocking history affects the degree of subsequent associative competition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 3, 71-74.
24. YOUNG, M. E., & WASSERMAN, E. A. (2004). Theories of learning. In K. Lamberts & R. Goldstone (Eds.), Handbook of cognition (pp. 161-182). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.