Blocking in autoshaped lever-pressing procedures with rats

Learning and Behavior

Volumn 42, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 1-21

  Holland, Peter C ^a   Asem, Judith S A ^a   Galvin, Connor P ^a   Keeney, Caitlin Hepps ^a   Hsu, Melanie ^a   Miller, Alexandra ^a   Zhou, Vivian ^a  

^a JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Associative learning; Autoshaping; Behavior systems; Blocking; Classical conditioning; Cue competition

Indexed keywords

ANIMAL; ASSOCIATION; AUDITORY STIMULATION; CONDITIONING; LONG EVANS RAT; MALE; PHYSIOLOGY; RAT; REINFORCEMENT;

ACOUSTIC STIMULATION; ANIMALS; CONDITIONING (PSYCHOLOGY); CUES; EXTINCTION, PSYCHOLOGICAL; MALE; RATS; RATS, LONG-EVANS; REINFORCEMENT (PSYCHOLOGY);

EID: 84898886646     PISSN: 15434494     EISSN: 15434508     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/s13420-013-0120-z     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Blundell, P.; Hall, G.; Killcross, S. (2003). Preserved sensitivity to outcome value after lesions of the basolateral amygdala. Journal of Neuroscience, 23, 7702-7709.
2. Boakes, R. A. (1977). Performance on learning to associate a stimulus with positive reinforcement. In H. Davis & H. Hurwitz (Eds.), Operant-Pavlovian interactions (pp. 67-97). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
3. Cardinal, R. N.; Parkinson, J. A.; Lachenal, G.; Halkerston, K. M.; Rudarakanchana, N.; Hall, J.; Everitt, B. J. (2002). Effects of selective excitotoxic lesions of the nucleus accumbens core, anterior cingulate cortex, and central nucleus of the amygdala on autoshaping performance in rats. Behavioral Neuroscience, 116, 553-567
4. Chang, S. E.; Wheeler, D. S.; Holland, P. C. (2012a). Effects of lesions of the amygdala central nucleus on autoshaped lever pressing. Brain Research, 1450, 49-56. doi: 10.1016/j.brainres.2012.02.029
5. Chang, S. E.; Wheeler, D. S.; Holland, P. C. (2012b). Roles of nucleus accumbens and basolateral amygdala in autoshaped lever pressing. Neurobiology of Learning and Memory, 97, 441-451. doi: 10.1016/j.nlm.2012.03.008
6. Costa, D. S. J.; Boakes, R. A. (2009). Context blocking in rat autoshaping: Sign-tracking versus goal-tracking. Learning and Motivation, 40, 178-185.
7. Davey, G. C. L.; Cleland, G. G.; Oakley, D. A. (1982). Applying Konorski's model of classical conditioning to signal centered behavior in the rat: Some functional similarities between hunger CRs and sign tracking. Animal Learning & Behavior, 10, 257-262.
8. Flagel, S. B.; Akil, H.; Robinson, T. E. (2009). Individual differences in the attribution of incentive salience to reward-related cues: Implications for addiction. Neuropharmacology, 56, 139-148.
9. Flagel, S. B.; Robinson, T. E.; Clark, J. J.; Clinton, S. M.; Watson, S. J.; Seeman, P.; Akil, H. (2010). An animal model of genetic vulnerability to behavioral disinhibition and responsiveness to reward-related cues: Implications for addiction. Neuropsychopharmacology, 35, 388-400.
10. Flagel, S. B.; Watson, S. J.; Akil, H.; Robinson, T. E. (2008). Individual differences in the attribution of incentive salience to a reward-related cue: Influence on cocaine sensitization. Behavioural Brain Research, 186, 48-56.
11. Grau, J. W.; Rescorla, R. A. (1984). The role of context in autoshaping. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Animal Behavior Processes, 10, 324-332.
12. Holland, P. C. (1977). Conditioned stimulus as a determinant of the form of the Pavlovian conditioned response. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Animal Behavior Processes, 3, 77-104. doi: 10.1037/0097-7403.3.1.77
13. Holland, P. C. (2000). Trial and intertribal durations in appetitive conditioning in rats. Animal Learning & Behavior, 28, 121-135. doi: 10.3758/BF03200248
14. Holland, P. C.; Gallagher, M. (1999). Amygdala circuitry in attentional and representational processes. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 3, 65-73.
15. Kearns, D. N.; Weiss, S. J. (2004). Sign-tracking (autoshaping) in rats: A comparison of cocaine and food as unconditioned stimuli. Learning & Behavior, 32, 463-476. doi: 10.3758/BF03196042
16. Khallad, Y.; Moore, J. (1996). Blocking, unblocking, and overexpectation in autoshaping with pigeons. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 65, 575-591.
17. Mahler, S. V.; Berridge, K. C. (2009). Which cue to "want?" Central amygdala opioid activation enhances and focuses incentive salience on a prepotent reward cue. Journal of Neuroscience, 29, 6500-6513.
18. Miller, R. R.; Barnet, R. C.; Grahame, N. J. (1995). Assessment of the Rescorla-Wagner model. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 363-386. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.363
19. Miller, R. R.; Schachtman, T. R. (1985). Conditioning context as an associative baseline: Implications for response generation and the nature of conditioned inhibition. In R. R. Miller & N. E. Spear (Eds.), Information processing in animals: Conditioned inhibition (pp. 51-88). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
20. Parkinson, J. A.; Robbins, T. W.; Everitt, B. J. (2000). Dissociable roles of the central and basolateral amygdala in appetitive emotional learning. European Journal of Neuroscience, 12, 405-413.
21. Parkinson, J. A.; Willoughby, P. J.; Robbins, T. W.; Everitt, B. J. (2000). Disconnection of the anterior cingulate cortex and nucleus accumbens core impairs Pavlovian approach behavior: Further evidence for limbic cortical-ventral striatopallidal systems. Behavioral Neuroscience, 114, 42-63.
22. 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. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.87.6.532
23. Pearce, J. M.; Kaye, H.; Hall, G. (1982). Predictive accuracy and stimulus associability: Development of a model for Pavlovian learning. In M. L. Commons, R. J. Herrnstein, & A. R. Wagner (Eds.), Quantitative analysis of behavior (Vol. 3, pp. 241-255). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
24. Pearce, J. M.; Mackintosh, N. J. (2010). Two theories of attention: A review and a possible integration. In C. J. Mitchell & M. E. Le Pelley (Eds.), Attention and associative learning: From brain to behaviour (pp. 11-39). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
25. Pearce, J. M.; Redhead, E. S. (1995). Supernormal conditioning. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Animal Behavior Processes, 21, 155-165. doi: 10.1037/0097-7403.21.2.155
26. Rescorla, R. A. (1971). Variation in the effectiveness of reinforcement and nonreinforcement following prior inhibitory conditioning. Learning and Motivation, 2, 113-123. doi: 10.1016/0023-9690(71)90002-6
27. Rescorla, R. A. (1981). Within signal learning in autoshaping. Animal Learning & Behavior, 9, 245-252.
28. Rescorla, R. A. (1989). Redundant treatment of neutral and excitatory stimuli in autoshaping. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Animal Behavior Processes, 15, 212-223. doi: 10.1037/0097-7403.15.3.212
29. Rescorla, R. A. (1997). Response-inhibition in extinction. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 50B, 238-252.
30. Rescorla, R. A. (1999a). Learning about qualitatively different outcomes during a blocking procedure. Animal Learning & Behavior, 27, 140-151. doi: 10.3758/BF03199671
31. Rescorla, R. A. (1999b). Summation and overexpectation with qualitatively different outcomes. Animal Learning & Behavior, 27, 50-62. doi: 10.3758/BF03199431
32. Rescorla, R. A. (2000). Associative changes in excitors and inhibitors differ when they are conditioned in compound. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Animal Behavior Processes, 26, 428-438. doi: 10.1037/0097-7403.26.4. 428
33. Rescorla, R. A. (2004). Superconditioning from a reduced reinforcer. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 57B, 133-152.
34. Rescorla, R. A.; Coldwell, S. E. (1995). Summation in autoshaping. Animal Learning & Behavior, 23, 314-326.
35. 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, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
36. Robinson, T. E.; Flagel, S. B. (2009). Dissociating the predictive and incentive motivational properties of reward-related cues through the study of individual differences. Biological Psychiatry, 65, 869-873.
37. Schmajuk, N. A.; Lam, Y.; Gray, J. A. (1996). Latent inhibition: A neural network approach. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Animal Behavior Processes, 22, 321-349. doi: 10.1037/0097-7403.22.3.321
38. Speers, M. A.; Gillan, D. J.; Rescorla, R. A. (1980). Within-compound associations in a variety of compound conditioning procedures. Learning and Motivation, 11, 135-149.
39. Sutton, R. S.; Barto, A. G. (1981). Toward a modern theory of adaptive networks: Expectation and prediction. Psychological Review, 88, 135-170. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.88.2.135
40. Tomie, A. (1996). Locating reward cue at response manipulandum (CAM) induces symptoms of drug abuse. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 20, 505-535.
41. Tomie, A.; Grimes, K. L.; Pohorecky, L. A. (2008). Behavioral characteristics and neurobiological substrates shared by Pavlovian sign-tracking and drug abuse. Brain Research Reviews, 58, 121-135.