The effect of subadditive pretraining on blocking: Limits on generalization

Learning and Behavior

Volumn 36, Issue 4, 2008, Pages 341-351

  Wheeler, Daniel S ^a   Beckers, Tom ^b   Miller, Ralph R ^a  

^a BINGHAMTON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LEUVEN   (Belgium)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANIMAL EXPERIMENT; ARTICLE; ASSOCIATION; CONDITIONING; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; MALE; NONHUMAN; RAT; STATE DEPENDENT LEARNING; TASK PERFORMANCE; TRAINING; ANIMAL; ANIMAL BEHAVIOR; LEARNING; SPRAGUE DAWLEY RAT;

ANIMALS; ASSOCIATION LEARNING; BEHAVIOR, ANIMAL; CONDITIONING (PSYCHOLOGY); CUES; FEMALE; GENERALIZATION (PSYCHOLOGY); MALE; RATS; RATS, SPRAGUE-DAWLEY;

EID: 58149146879     PISSN: 15434494     EISSN: 15434508     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/LB.36.4.341     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. ALVARADO, M. C., & RUDY, J. W. (1992). Some properties of configural learning: An investigation of the transverse-patterning problem. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 18, 145-153.
2. BECKERS, T., DE HOUWER, J., PINEÑO, O., & MILLER, R. R. (2005). Outcome additivity and outcome maximality influence cue competition in human causal learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 31, 238-249. (Pubitemid 40405728)
3. BECKERS, T., MILLER, R. R., DE HOUWER, J., & URUSHIHARA, K. (2006). Reasoning rats: Forward blocking in Pavlovian animal conditioning is sensitive to constraints of causal inference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135, 92-102. (Pubitemid 43283739)
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., & KING, D. A. (1983). Contextual control of the extinction of conditioned fear: Tests for the associative value of the context. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 9, 248-265.
6. DE HOUWER, J., & BECKERS, T. (2003). Secondary task difficulty modulates forward blocking in human contingency learning. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 56B, 345-357. (Pubitemid 37416926)
7. DE HOUWER, J., BECKERS, T., & GLAUTIER, S. (2002). Outcome and cue properties modulate blocking. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55A, 965-985.
8. DE HOUWER, J., VANDORPE, S., & BECKERS, T. (2005). On the role of controlled cognitive processes in human associative learning. In A. J. Wills (Ed.), New directions in human associative learning (pp. 41-63). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
9. ESCOBAR, M., & MILLER, R. R. (2003). Timing in retroactive interference. Learning & Behavior, 31, 257-272. (Pubitemid 37214580)
10. ESTES, W. K. (1950). Toward a statistical theory of learning. Psychological Review, 57, 94-107.
11. GENTNER, D. (2003). Why we're so smart. In D. Gentner & S. Goldin- Meadow (Eds.), Language in mind: Advances in the study of language and thought (pp. 195-235). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
12. GODDEN, D. R., & BADDELEY, A. D. (1975). Context-dependent memory in two natural environments: On land and underwater. British Journal of Psychology, 66, 325-331.
13. HALL, G., & HONEY, R. C. (1989). Contextual effects in conditioning, latent inhibition, and habituation: Associative and retrieval functions of contextual cues. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 15, 232-241.
14. HALL, G., & HONEY, R. C. (1990). Context-specific conditioning in the conditioned-emotional-response procedure. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 16, 271-278.
15. HINCHY, J., LOVIBOND, P. F., & TER-HORST, K. M. (1995). Blocking in human electrodermal conditioning. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 48B, 2-12.
16. HOLLAND, P. C. (1992). Occasion setting in Pavlovian conditioning. In D. L. Medin (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 28, pp. 69-125). San Diego: Academic Press.
17. 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, FL: University of Miami Press.
18. LACHNIT, H., KIMMEL, H., BEVILL, M., MARTIN, I., LEVEY, A., & HAMM, A. (1990). Classical conditioning with human subjects. In P. J. D. Drenth, J. A. Sergeant, & R. J. Takens (Eds.), European perspectives in psychology: Vol.1. Theoretical, psychometrics, personality, developmental, educational, cognitive, gerontological (pp. 353-368). Chichester, U.K.: Wiley.
19. LIVESEY, E. J., & BOAKES, R. A. (2004). Outcome additivity, elemental processing and blocking in human causality judgements. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 57B, 361-379. (Pubitemid 39453574)
20. LOVIBOND, P. F., PRESTON, G. C., & MACKINTOSH, N. J. (1984). Context specificity of conditioning, extinction, and latent inhibition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 10, 360-375.
21. MELCHERS, K. G., SHANKS, D. R., & LACHNIT, H. (2008). Stimulus coding in human associative learning: Flexible representations of parts and wholes. Behavioural Processes, 77, 413-427. (Pubitemid 351273531)
22. MELCHERS, K. G., ÜNGÖR, M., & LACHNIT, H. (2005). The experimental task influences cue competition in human causal learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 31, 477-483. (Pubitemid 41650698)
23. 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). New York: Academic Press.
24. MITCHELL, C. J., & LOVIBOND, P. F. (2002). Backward and forward blocking in human electrodermal conditioning: Blocking requires an assumption of outcome additivity. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55B, 311-329.
25. PEARCE, J. M. (1994). Similarity and discrimination: A selective review and a connectionist model. Psychological Review, 101, 587-607. (Pubitemid 24976818)
26. 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.
27. PELLÓN, R., & MONTAÑO, J. M. G. (1990). Conditioned stimuli as determinants of blocking in human electrodermal conditioning. In P. J. D. Drenth, J. A. Sergeant, & R. J. Takens (Eds.), European perspectives in psychology: Vol.2. Clinical, health, stress and anxiety, neuropsychology, psychophysiology (pp. 409-423). Chichester, U.K.: Wiley.
28. 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.
29. RICCIO, D. C., ACKIL, J., & BURCH-VERNON, A. (1992). Forgetting of stimulus attributes: Methodological implications for assessing associative phenomena. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 433-445.
30. RICCIO, D. C., RICHARDSON, R., & EBNER, D. L. (1984). Memory retrieval deficits based upon altered contextual cues: A paradox. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 152-165.
31. SHANKS, D. R., & DICKINSON, A. (1987). Associative accounts of causality judgment. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 21, pp. 229-261). New York: Academic Press.
32. WILLIAMS, D. A., & BRAKER, D. S. (1999). Influence of past experience on the coding of compound stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 25, 461-474.
33. WILLIAMS, D. A., & BRAKER, D. S. (2002). Input coding in animal and human associative learning. Behavioural Processes, 57, 149-161. (Pubitemid 34266235)
34. WILLIAMS, D. A., SAGNESS, K. E., & MCPHEE, J. E. (1994). Configural and elemental strategies in predictive learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 20, 694-709.