Spontaneous recovery from interference between cues but not from backward blocking

Behavioural Processes

Volumn 84, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 521-525

  Luque, David ^a   Morís, Joaquín ^a   Cobos, Pedro L ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MÁLAGA   (Spain)

Author keywords

Associative learning; Backward blocking; Human learning; Interference between cues

Indexed keywords

HUMAN BEHAVIOR; LEARNING; NUMERICAL MODEL; PREDICTION; TESTING METHOD;

ARTICLE; ASSOCIATION; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEEDBACK SYSTEM; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; MEMORY; PREDICTION; STATE DEPENDENT LEARNING; STIMULUS RESPONSE; TASK PERFORMANCE; THEORETICAL MODEL;

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; CUES; HUMANS; LEARNING; MODELS, PSYCHOLOGICAL; TIME FACTORS; VISUAL PERCEPTION;

EID: 77951976983     PISSN: 03766357     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.beproc.2009.12.016     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Baddeley A. Human Memory. Theory and Practice 1997, Psychology Press, Hove, UK. revised ed.
2. Bouton M.E. Context, time, and memory retrieval in the interference paradigms of Pavlovian learning. Psychol. Bull. 1993, 114:80-99.
3. Dickinson A., Burke J. Within-compound associations mediate the retrospective revaluation of causality judgements. Quart. J. Exp. Psychol. 1996, 49B:60-80.
4. Escobar M., Pineño O., Matute H. A comparison between elemental and compound training of cues in retrospective revaluation. Anim. Learn. Behav. 2002, 30:228-238.
5. Hsu J.C. Multiple Comparisons: Theory and Methods 1996, Chapman & Hall, London.
6. Luque D., Morís J., Cobos P.L., López F.J. Interference between cues of the same outcome in a non-causally framed scenario. Behav. Process. 2009, 89:328-332.
7. Matute H., Pineño O. Stimulus competition in the absence of compound conditioning. Anim. Learn. Behav. 1998, 26:3-14.
8. Matute H., Pineño O. Cue competition in the absence of compound training: its relation to paradigms of competition between outcomes. The Psychology of Learning and Motivation 1998, vol. 38:45-81. Academic Press, San Diego.
9. Miller R.R., Escobar M. Associative interference between cues and between outcomes presented together and presented apart: an integration. Behav. Process. 2002, 57:163-185.
10. Miller R.R., Matzel L.D. The comparator hypothesis: a response rule for the expression of associations. The Psychology of Learning and Motivation 1988, vol. 22:51-92. Academic Press, San Diego.
11. Pineño O., Ortega N., Matute H. The relative activation of the associations modulates interference between elementally trained cues. Learn. Motiv. 2000, 31:128-152.
12. Pineño O., Urushihara K., Miller R.R. Spontaneous recovery from forward and backward blocking. J. Exp. Psychol.: Anim. Behav. Process 2005, 31:172-183.
13. Shanks D.R. Forward and backward blocking in human contingency judgment. Quart. J. Exp. Psychol. 1985, 37B:1-21.
14. Stout S.C., Miller R.R. Sometimes-competing retrieval (SOCR): a formalization of the comparator hypothesis. Psychol. Rev. 2007, 114:759-783.
15. Vadillo M.A., Castro L., Matute H., Wasserman E.A. Backward blocking: the role of within-compound associations and interference between cues trained apart. Quart. J. Exp. Psychol. 2008, 61:185-193.
16. Van Hamme L.J., Wasserman E.A. Cue competition in causality judgments: the role of nonpresentation of compound stimulus elements. Learn. Motiv. 1994, 25:127-151.