Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-5db6c4db9b-v64r6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2023-03-26T19:25:34.560Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "useRatesEcommerce": false } hasContentIssue true

6 - Attention, associations, and configurations in conditioning

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 January 2011

Nestor Schmajuk
By
N. A. Schmajuk ,
M. G. Kutlu ,
J. Dunsmoor  and
J. A. Larrauri
Nestor Schmajuk
Affiliation:
Duke University Medical Center, Durham
Get access

Summary

Abstract

This chapter describes a number of computational mechanisms (associations, attention, and configuration) that first seemed necessary to explain a small number of conditioning results and then proved able to account for a large part of the extensive body of conditioning data. We first present a neural-network theory (Schmajuk, Lam, & Gray, 1996), which includes attentional and associative mechanisms, and apply it to the description of brain activity in the amygdala, anterior cingulate cortex, dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (PFC) and insula, compound conditioning with different initial associative values, the accelerating effect of the extinction of the conditioned excitor on the conditioning of its corresponding conditioned inhibitor, super latent inhibition, recovery and absence of recovery from blocking, latent inhibition–overshadowing synergism and antagonism, summation tests in the context of extinction, and spontaneous recovery. Then we describe another neural network (Schmajuk & Di Carlo, 1992; Schmajuk, Lamoureux, & Holland, 1998) that includes configural mechanisms, and apply it to the description of response form in occasion setting. Finally, we show how the combination of attentional, associative, and configural mechanisms (Schmajuk & Kutlu, 2010) describes the effect of additivity pretraining and posttraining on blocking in causal learning.

Schmajuk, Lam, and Gray's (1996) attentional–associative model

Schmajuk et al. (1996) and Schmajuk and Larrauri (2006) proposed a neural-network model (SLG model) of classical conditioning. The SLG model shares properties with other associability models, including equations that portray behavior on a moment-to-moment basis (Grossberg, 1975; Wagner, 1981), the attentional control of the formation of CS–US associations (Pearce & Hall, 1980), the competition among CSs to become associated with the US (Rescorla & Wagner, 1972) or other CSs (Schmajuk & Moore, 1988), and the combination of attention and competition (Wagner, 1979).

Type
Chapter
Information
Computational Models of Conditioning , pp. 186 - 218
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Purchase

Buy Book

Buy print or eBook[Opens in a new window]

References

Beckers, T., Houwer, J., Pineno, O. & Miller, R. R. (2005). Outcome additivity and outcome maximality influence cue competition in human causal learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31, 238–249.Google ScholarPubMed
Beckers, T., Miller, R. R., 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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blaisdell, A., Bristol, A., Gunther, L. & Miller, R. (1998). Overshadowing and latent inhibition counteract each other: further support for the comparator hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 24, 335–351.Google ScholarPubMed
Blaisdell, A. P., Gunther, L. & Miller, R. (1999). Recovery from blocking achieved by extinguishing the blocking CS. Animal Learning and Behavior, 27, 63–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.Google ScholarPubMed
Bouton, M. E. & Swartzentruber, D. (1989). Slow reacquisition following extinction: context, encoding, and retrieval mechanisms. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 15, 43–53.Google Scholar
Cain, C. K., Blouin, A. M. & Barad, M. (2003). Temporally massed CS presentations generate more fear extinction than spaced presentations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 29, 323–333.Google ScholarPubMed
Chorazyna, H. (1962). Some properties of conditioned inhibition. Acta Biologiae Experimentalis, 22, 5–13.Google ScholarPubMed
Church, R. M. (2001). A Turing test for computational and associative theories of learning. Current Directions in Psychological Sciences, 10, 132–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, M. & Whalen, P. J. (2001). The amygdala: vigilance and emotion. Molecular Psychiatry, 6, 13–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Casa, L. & Lubow, R. (2000). Super-latent inhibition with delayed conditioned taste aversion testing. Animal Learning and Behavior, 28, 389–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Casa, L. & Lubow, R. (2002). An empirical analysis of the super-latent inhibition effect. Animal Learning and Behavior, 30, 112–120.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
D'Esposito, M., Postle, B. R. & Rypma, B. (2000). Prefontal cortical contributions to working memory: evidence from event-related fMRI studies. Experimental Brain Research, 133, 3–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunsmoor, J. & Schmajuk, N. (2009). Interpreting patterns of brain activation in human fear conditioning with an attentional-associative learning model. Behavioral Neuroscience, 123, 851–855.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dunsmoor, J. E., Bandettini, P. A. & Knight, D. C. (2007). Impact of continuous versus intermittent CS–UCS pairing on human brain activation during Pavlovian fear conditioning. Behavioral Neuroscience, 121, 635–642.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fuster, J. M. (1973). Unit activity in prefrontal cortex during delayed-response performance: neuronal correlates of transient memory. Journal of Neurophysiology, 36, 61–78.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Good, M. & Honey, R. (1993). Selective hippocampus lesions abolish contextual specificity of latent inhibition and conditioning. Behavioral Neuroscience, 107, 23–33.Google Scholar
Grossberg, S. (1975). A neural model of attention, reinforcement, and discrimination learning. International Review of Neurobiology, 18, 263–327.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hall, G. & Schachtman, T. R. (1987). Differential effects of a retention interval on latent inhibition and the habituation of an orienting response. Animal Learning and Behavior, 15, 76–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holland, P. C. (1989). Occasion setting with simultaneous compounds in rats. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 15, 183–193.Google Scholar
Holland, P. C. (1999). Overshadowing and blocking as acquisition deficits: no recovery after extinction of overshadowing or blocking cues. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 52B, 307–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Honey, R. C. & Hall, G. (1989). Attenuation of latent inhibition after compound preexposure: associative and perceptual explanations. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology B: Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 41, 355–368.Google Scholar
Ishii, K., Haga, Y. & Hishimura, Y. (1999). Distractor effect on latent inhibition of conditioned flavor aversion in rats. Japanese Psychological Research, 41, 229–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Konorski, J. (1967). Integrative Activity of the Brain. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lantz, A. E. (1973). Effect of number of trials, interstimulus interval, and dishabituation on subsequent conditioning in a CER paradigm. Animal Learning and Behavior, 1, 273–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larrauri, J. A. & Schmajuk, N. A. (2008). Attentional, associative, and configural mechanisms of extinction. Psychological Review, 115, 640–676.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pelley, M. E. (2004). The role of associative history in models of associative learning: a selective review and a hybrid model. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 57B, 193–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lovibond, P. E., Been, S. L., Mitchell, C. J., Bouton, M. E. & Frohardt, R. (2003). Forward and backward blocking of causal judgment is enhanced by additivity of effect magnitude. Memory and Cognition, 31, 133–42.Google ScholarPubMed
Lysle, D. T. & Fowler, F. (1985). Inhibition as a “slave” process: deactivation of conditioned inhibition through extinction of conditioned excitation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 11, 71–94.Google ScholarPubMed
Mackintosh, N. J. (1975). A theory of attention: variations in the associability of stimuli with reinforcement. Psychological Review, 82, 276–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackintosh, N. J. & Turner, C. (1971). Blocking as a function of novelty of CS and predictability of UCS. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 23, 359–366.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maren, S. & Chang, C. (2006). Recent fear is resistant to extinction. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 103, 18020–18025.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, R. R. & Schachtman, T. (1985). Conditioning context as an associative baseline: implications for response generation and the nature of conditioned inhibition. In Miller, R. R. and Spear, N. E., eds., Information Processing in Animals: Conditioned Inhibition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 51–88.Google Scholar
Moody, E. W., Sunsay, C. & Bouton, M. E. (2006). Priming and trial spacing in extinction: effects on extinction performance, spontaneous recovery, and reinstatement in appetitive conditioning. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59, 809–829.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nagaishi, T. & Nakajima, S. (2008). Further evidence for the summation of latent inhibition and overshadowing in rats' conditioned taste aversion. Learning and Motivation, 39, 221–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nakajima, S. & Nagaishi, T. (2005). Summation of latent inhibition and overshadowing in a generalized bait shyness paradigm of rats. Behavioural Processes, 69, 369–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nakajima, S., Ka, H. & Imada, H. (1999). Summation of overshadowing and latent inhibition in rats' conditioned taste aversion: scapegoat technique works for familiar meals. Appetite, 33, 299–307.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pearce, J. & Hall, G. (1980). A model for Pavlovian conditioning: variations in the effectiveness of conditioned but not unconditioned stimuli. Psychological Review, 87, 332–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phelps, E. A. & LeDoux, J. E. (2005). Contributions of the amygdala to emotion processing: from animal models to human behavior. Neuron, 48, 175–187.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.Google ScholarPubMed
Rescorla, R. A. (2001). Unequal associative changes when excitors and neural stimuli are conditioned in compound. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology B: Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 54B, 53–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rescorla, R. A. (2002). Effect of following an excitatory–inhibitory compound with an intermediate reinforcer. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 28, 163–174.Google ScholarPubMed
Rescorla, R. A. (2003). Protection from extinction. Learning and Behavior, 31, 124–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rescorla, R. A. (2004). Spontaneous recovery varies inversely with the training–extinction interval. Learning and Behavior, 32, 401–408.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rescorla, R. A. & Holland, P. C. (1977). Associations in Pavlovian conditioned inhibition. Learning and Motivation, 8, 429–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rescorla, R. A. & Wagner, A. (1972). A theory of Pavlovian conditioning: variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and non-reinforcement. In Black, A.H. and Prokasy, W.F., eds., Classical Conditioning ii: Current Research and Theory. New York: Appleton–Century–Crofts, pp. 64–99.Google Scholar
Richards, R. W. & Sargent, D. M. (1983). The order of presentation of conditioned stimuli during extinction. Animal Learning and Behavior, 11, 229–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robbins, S. J. (1990). Mechanisms underlying spontaneous recovery in autoshaping. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 16, 235–249.Google Scholar
Schmajuk, N. A. (2010). Mechanisms in Classical Conditioning: A Computational Approach. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmajuk, N. A. & Buhusi, C. V. (1997). Spatial and temporal cognitive mapping: a neural network approach. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 1, 109–114.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schmajuk, N. A. & Di Carlo, J. J. (1992). Stimulus configuration, classical conditioning, and the hippocampus. Psychological Review, 99, 268–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmajuk, N. A. & Kutlu, M. G. (2009). The computational nature of associative learning. Behavioral Brain Science, 32, 223–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmajuk, N. A. & Kutlu, M. G. (2010). A computational model that provides an associative interpretation of outcome additivity and maximality effects on blocking. In Alonso, E. and Mondragon, E., eds., Computational Neuroscience for Advancing Artificial Intelligence: Models, Methods and Applications. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.Google Scholar
Schmajuk, N. A. & Larrauri, J. A. (2006). Experimental challenges to theories of classical conditioning: application of an attentional model of storage and retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 32, 1–20.Google ScholarPubMed
Schmajuk, N. A. & Larrauri, J. A. (2008). Associative models describe both causal learning and conditioning. Behavioral Processes, 77, 443–445.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schmajuk, N. A. & Moore, J. (1988). The hippocampus and the classically conditioned nictitating membrane response: a real-time attentional-associative model. Psychobiology, 16, 20–35.Google Scholar
Schmajuk, N. A., Cox, L. & Gray, J. A. (2001). Nucleus accumbens, entorhinal cortex and latent inhibition: a neural network model. Behavioral Brain Research, 118, 123–141.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.Google ScholarPubMed
Schmajuk, N. A., Lamoureux, J. A. & Holland, P. C. (1998). Occasion setting: a neural network approach. Psychological Review, 105(1), 3–32.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shevill, I. & Hall, G. (2004). Retrospective revaluation effects in the conditioned suppression procedure. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology B: Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 57B, 331–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soltysik, S. (1985). Protection from extinction: new data and a hypothesis of several varieties of conditioned inhibition. In Miller, R.R. and Spear, N.E., eds., Information Processing in Animals: Conditioned Inhibition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Turing, A. M. (1950). Computing machinery and intelligence. Mind, 59, 433–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wagner, A. R. (1979). Habituation and memory. In Dickinson, A. and Boakes, R. A., eds., Mechanisms of Learning and Motivation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Wagner, A. R. (1981). SOP: a model of automatic memory processing in animal behavior. In Spear, N. E. and Miller, R. R., eds., Information Processing in Animals: Memory Mechanisms. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 5–47.Google Scholar
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 and Behavior, 32, 335–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, P. N., Boumphrey, P. & Pearce, J. M. (1992). Restoration of the orienting response to a light by a change in its predictive accuracy. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 44B, 17–36.Google Scholar
Young, M. E. & Wasserman, E. A. (2002). Limited attention and cue order consistency affect predictive learning: a test of similarity measures. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28, 484–496.Google ScholarPubMed

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×