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-8448b6f56d-c47g7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T06:15:15.830Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

3 - The hybrid modeling approach to conditioning

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 January 2011

Nestor Schmajuk
By
M. E. Le Pelley
Nestor Schmajuk
Affiliation:
Duke University Medical Center, Durham
Get access

Summary

Abstract

Broadly, models of conditioning and associative learning have two main goals: (1) to describe the way in which stimuli are represented in the learning system (see Harris, 2010, this volume), and (2) to describe the mechanics of the learning process itself, that is to say, the factors that determine the amount of learning that a given stimulus will undergo on a given learning episode. Clearly these two issues are not perfectly separable: as Harris demonstrates, the nature of stimulus representation used by a learning system can influence the type of associative process that must be assumed in order for that system to learn in a similar manner to animals or humans. Nevertheless, the focus of the current chapter will be almost exclusively on the second of these issues. More specifically, this chapter will consider the various ways in which an organism's prior experience of stimuli, and prior learning about their consequences (the “associative history” of those stimuli), influences the amount that the organism will learn about those stimuli in future.

Over a century's worth of research on animal conditioning has generated a wealth of empirical evidence relating to the influence of associative history on future learning. Historically, in developing models of learning, theorists have tended to concentrate on one such influence and build a model centered on that aspect. For example (and to anticipate), the model developed by Mackintosh (1975) deals exclusively with examples of positive transfer of the processing of cues; Pearce and Hall's (1980) model was developed purely on the basis of examples of negative transfer of cue processing; and Rescorla and Wagner's (1972) model deals with competition between cues on the basis of the surprisingness of the outcome.

Type
Chapter
Information
Computational Models of Conditioning , pp. 71 - 107
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.)

References

Baker, A. G. & Mackintosh, N. J. (1977). Excitatory and inhibitory conditioning following uncorrelated presentations of CS and UCS. Animal Learning and Behavior, 5, 315–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, A. G. & Mackintosh, N. J. (1979). Preexposure to the CS alone, or CS and US uncorrelated: latent inhibition, blocking by context or learned irrelevance?Learning and Motivation, 10, 278–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baxter, M. G., Gallagher, M. & Holland, P. C. (1999). Blocking can occur without losses in attention in rats with selective removal of hippocampal cholinergic input. Behavioral Neuroscience, 113, 881–890.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beesley, T. & Pelley, M. E. (2010). The effect of predictive history on the learning of sub-sequence contingencies. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63, 108–135.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bennett, C. H., Wills, S. J., Oakeshott, S. M. & Mackintosh, N. J. (2000). Is the context specificity of latent inhibition a sufficient explanation of learned irrelevance?Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 53B, 239–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonardi, C. & Hall, G. (1996). Learned irrelevance: no more than the sum of CS and US preexposure effects?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 22, 183–191.Google Scholar
Bonardi, C. & Ong, S. Y. (2003). Learned irrelevance: a contemporary overview. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 56B, 80–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonardi, C., Graham, S., Hall, G. & Mitchell, C. J. (2005). Acquired distinctiveness and equivalence in human discrimination learning: evidence for an attentional process. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 12, 88–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brandon, S. E., Vogel, E. H. & Wagner, A. R. (2003). Stimulus representation in SOP i: theoretical rationalization and some implications. Behavioral Processes, 62, 5–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bush, R. R. & Mosteller, F. (1951). A mathematical model for simple learning. Psychological Review, 58, 313–323.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dias, R., Robbins, T. W. & Roberts, A. C. (1996). Dissociation in prefrontal cortex of affective and attentional shifts. Nature, 380, 69–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dickinson, A. (2001). Causal learning: an associative analysis. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section B: Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 54, 3–25.CrossRef
Dickinson, A., Shanks, D. R. & Evenden, J. L. (1984). Judgement of act-outcome contingency: the role of selective attribution. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 36A, 29–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dopson, J., Esber, G. R. & Pearce, J. M. (2010). Differences between the associability of relevant and irrelevant stimuli are not due to acquired equivalence and distinctiveness. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 36, 258–267.Google ScholarPubMed
Estes, W. K. (1950). Toward a statistical theory of learning. Psychological Review, 57, 94–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
George, D. N. & Pearce, J. M. (1999). Acquired distinctiveness is controlled by stimulus relevance not correlation with reward. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 25, 363–373.Google Scholar
Graham, S. & McLaren, I. P. L. (1998). Retardation in human discrimination learning as a consequence of preexposure: latent inhibition or negative priming?Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 51B, 155–172.Google Scholar
Hall, G. (1991). Perceptual and Associative Learning. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, G. & Pearce, J. M. (1979). Latent inhibition of a CS during CS-US pairings. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 3, 31–42.Google Scholar
Hall, G. & Pearce, J. M. (1982). Restoring the associability of a preexposed CS by a surprising event. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 34B, 127–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, J. A. (2006). Elemental representations of stimuli in associative learning. Psychological Review, 113, 584–605.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harris, J. A. (2010). The arguments of associations. In Schmajuk, N. A., ed., Computational Models of Conditioning. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Haselgrove, M., Esber, G. R., Pearce, J. M. & Jones, P. M. (in press). Differences in stimulus associability following continuous and partial reinforcement. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes.
Holland, P. C. & Fox, G. D. (2003). Effects of hippocampal lesions in overshadowing and blocking procedures. Behavioral Neuroscience, 117, 650–656.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kamin, L. J. (1969). Predictability, surprise, attention and conditioning. In Campbell, B. A. and Church, R. M., eds., Punishment and Aversive Behavior. New York: Appleton–Century–Crofts, pp. 279–296.Google Scholar
Kaye, H. & Pearce, J. M. (1984). The strength of the orienting response during Pavlovian conditioning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 10, 90–109.Google ScholarPubMed
Konorski, J. (1967). Integrative Activity of the Brain. Chicago, Ill: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kruschke, J. K. (1996). Dimensional relevance shifts in category learning. Connection Science, 8, 225–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kruschke, J. K. (2001). Towards a unified model of attention in associative learning. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 45, 812–863.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawrence, D. H. (1952). The transfer of a discrimination along a continuum. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 45, 511–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pelley, M. E. (2004). The role of associative history in models of associative learning: a selective review and a hybrid model. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 57B, 193–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pelley, M. E. & McLaren, I. P. L. (2003). Learned associability and associative change in human causal learning. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 56B, 68–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pelley, M. E. & Schmidt-Hansen, M. (2010). Latent inhibition and learned irrelevance in human contingency learning. In Lubow, R. E. and Weiner, I., eds., Latent Inhibition: Cognition, Neuroscience, and Applications to Schizophrenia. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 94–113.Google Scholar
Pelley, M. E., Turnbull, M. N., Reimers, S. J. & Knipe, R. L. (2010). Learned predictiveness effects following single-cue training in humans. Learning and Behavior, 38, 126–144.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leung, H. T. & Westbrook, R. F. (2008). Spontaneous recovery of extinguished fear responses deepens their extinction: a role for error-correction mechanisms. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 34, 461–474.Google ScholarPubMed
Livesey, E. J. & McLaren, I. P. L. (2007). Elemental associability changes in human discrimination learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 33, 148–159.Google ScholarPubMed
Lovejoy, E. (1968). Attention in Discrimination Learning. San Francisco, CA: Holden-Day.Google Scholar
Lubow, R. E. (1973). Latent inhibition. Psychological Bulletin, 79, 398–407.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lubow, R. E. (1989). Latent Inhibition and Conditioned Attention Theory. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lubow, R. E. & Gewirtz, J. C. (1995). Latent inhibition in humans: data, theory, and implications for schizophrenia. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 87–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackintosh, N. J. (1969). Further analysis of the overtraining reversal effect. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 67.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mackintosh, N. J. (1973). Stimulus selection: learning to ignore stimuli that predict no change in reinforcement. In Hinde, R. A. and Hinde, J. S., eds., Constraints on Learning. London: Academic Press, pp. 75–96.Google Scholar
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. (1978). Cognitive or associative theories of conditioning: implications of an analysis of blocking. In Fowler, H., Honig, W. K. and Pulse, S. H., eds., Cognitive Processes in Animal Behavior. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 155–175.Google Scholar
Mackintosh, N. J. & Turner, C. (1971). Blocking as a function of novelty of CS and predictability of UCS. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 23, 359–366.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pavlov, I. P. (1927). Conditioned Reflexes. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pearce, J. M. (1987). A model for stimulus generalization in Pavlovian conditioning. Psychological Review, 94, 61–73.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pearce, J. M. (1994). Similarity and discrimination: a selective review and a connectionist model. Psychological Review, 101, 587–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearce, J. M. & Hall, G. (1980). A model for Pavlovian conditioning: variations in the effectiveness of conditioned but not of unconditioned stimuli. Psychological Review, 87, 532–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearce, J. M., George, D. N. & Redhead, E. S. (1998). The role of attention in the solution of conditional discriminations. In Schmajuk, N. A. and Holland, P. C., eds., Occasion Setting: Associative Learning and Cognition in Animals. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Pearce, J. M. Kaye, H. & Hall, G. (1982). Predictive accuracy and stimulus associability: development of a model for Pavlovian conditioning. In Commons, M. L., Herrnstein, R. J. and Wagner, A. R., eds., Quantitative Analyses of Behavior: Acquisition (Vol. 3). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.Google Scholar
Pearce, J. M. & Mackintosh, N. J. (in press). Two theories of attention: a review and a possible integration. In Mitchell, C. J. and Pelley, M. E., eds., Attention and Associative Learning: From Brain to Behaviour. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Pearce, J. M., Nicholas, D. J. & Dickinson, A. (1982). Loss of associability by a conditioned inhibitor. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 34B, 149–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reid, L. S. (1953). The development of noncontinuity behavior through continuity learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 46, 107–112.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rescorla, R. A. (1969). Pavlovian conditioned inhibition. Psychological Bulletin, 72, 77–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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 neutral stimuli are conditioned in compound. Quarterly Journal of Experimental 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. & Wagner, A. R. (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. 64–69.Google Scholar
Schmajuk, N. A. (2009). Attentional and error-correcting associative mechanisms in classical conditioning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 35, 407–418.Google ScholarPubMed
Schmajuk, N. A. & Moore, J. W. (1985). Real-time attentional models for classical conditioning and the hippocampus. Physiological Psychology, 13, 278–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmajuk, N. A., Lam, Y. W. & Gray, J. A. (1996). Latent inhibition: a neural network approach. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 22, 321–349.Google ScholarPubMed
Shepp, B. E. & Eimas, P. D. (1964). Intradimensional and extradimensional shifts in the rat. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 57, 357–361.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shepp, B. E. & Schrier, A. M. (1969). Consecutive intradimensional and extradimensional shifts in monkeys. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 67, 199–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sutherland, N. S. & Mackintosh, N. J. (1971). Mechanisms of Animal Discrimination Learning. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Swan, J. A. & Pearce, J. M. (1988). The orienting response as an index of stimulus associability in rats. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 4, 292–301.Google Scholar
Whitney, L. & White, K. G. (1993). Dimensional shift and the transfer of attention. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 46B, 225–252.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. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 44B, 17–36.Google Scholar
Zeaman, D. & House, B. J. (1963). The role of attention in retardate discrimination learning. In Ellis, N. R., ed., Handbook of Mental Deficiency: Psychological Theory and Research. New York: McGraw-Hill, pp. 378–418.Google Scholar

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
×