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-594f858ff7-pr6g6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2023-06-07T09:52:13.028Z Has data issue: false Feature Flags: { "corePageComponentGetUserInfoFromSharedSession": false, "coreDisableEcommerce": false, "corePageComponentUseShareaholicInsteadOfAddThis": true, "coreDisableSocialShare": false, "useRatesEcommerce": true } hasContentIssue false

4 - Within-compound associations: models and data

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 January 2011

Nestor Schmajuk
By
James E. Witnauer  and
Ralph R. Miller
Nestor Schmajuk
Affiliation:
Duke University Medical Center, Durham
Get access

Summary

Abstract

During compound conditioning in which two or more cues are paired with an unconditioned stimulus (US), animals form associations between each cue and the US and associations between the cues (the latter of which are called within-compound associations). Most contemporary theories of associative learning assert that summation of cue–US associations drives negative mediation (e.g., blocking, overshadowing, and conditioned inhibition) because of their effects on the processing of the US representation. Using a computational modeling approach, we reviewed and simulated experiments that suggest that within-compound associations are necessary for cue interactions. A mathematical model that attributes all cue interactions to within-compound associations provided a better fit than a model that attributes negative mediation effects to variations in processing of the US. Overall, the results of this analysis suggest that within-compound associations are important for all cue interactions, including cue competition, conditioned inhibition, counteraction effects, retrospective revaluation, and second-order conditioning.

Within-compound associations: models and data

Pavlov (1927) discovered that both positive and negative mediation effects can occur when a target cue (X) is presented during training in conjunction with a nontarget cue (A). Positive mediation effects refer to situations in which the presence of A during training results in more excitatory behavioral control by X than if X was trained elementally. An example of positive mediation is second-order conditioning, which occurs when A–unconditioned stimulus (A–US) pairings (Phase 1) precede X–A pairings (Phase 2, which presumably establishes an X–A within-compound association), resulting in more excitatory conditioned responding to X than in a control condition lacking one or the other phase (Pavlov, 1927).

Type
Chapter
Information
Computational Models of Conditioning , pp. 108 - 149
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

Amundson, J. C., Wheeler, D. S. & Miller, R. R. (2005). Enhancement of Pavlovian conditioned inhibition achieved by posttraining inflation of the training excitor. Learning and Motivation, 36, 331–352.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Amundson, J. C., Witnauer, J. E., Pineno, O. & Miller, R. R. (2008). An inhibitory within-compound association attenuates overshadowing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 34, 133–143.Google ScholarPubMed
Blaisdell, A. P., Bristol, A. S., Gunther, L. M. & Miller, R. R. (1998). Overshadowing and latent inhibition counteract each other: Support for the comparator hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 24, 335–351.Google ScholarPubMed
Blaisdell, A. P., Denniston, J. C. & Miller, R. R. (2001). Recovery from the overexpectation effect: contrasting performance-focused and acquisition-focused models of retrospective revaluation. Animal Learning and Behavior, 29, 367–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blaisdell, A. P., Gunther, L. M. & Miller, R. R. (1999). Recovery from blocking through deflation of the blocking stimulus. Animal Learning and Behavior, 27, 63–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brogden, W. J. (1939). Sensory pre-conditioning. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 25, 323–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bush, R. R. & Mosteller, F. (1955). Stochastic Models for Learning. New York: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cole, R. P., Barnet, R. C. & Miller, R. R. (1995). Effect of relative stimulus validity: learning or performance deficit?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 21, 293–303.Google ScholarPubMed
Denniston, J. C., Savastano, H. I. & Miller, R. R. (2001). The extended comparator hypothesis: learning by contiguity, responding by relative strength. In Mowrer, R. R. and Klein, S. B., eds., Handbook of Contemporary Learning Theories. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 65–117.Google Scholar
Dickinson, A. & Burke, J. (1996). Within-compound associations mediate the retrospective revaluation of causality judgments. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49B, 60–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Durlach, P. J. & Rescorla, R. A. (1980). Potentiation rather than overshadowing in flavor-aversion learning: an analysis in terms of within-compound associations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 6, 175–187.Google ScholarPubMed
Espinet, A., Iraola, J. A., Bennett, C. H. & Mackintosh, N. J. (1995). Inhibitory association between neutral stimuli in flavor-aversion conditioning. Animal Learning and Behavior, 23, 361–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fanselow, M. S. (1998). Pavlovian conditioning, negative feedback, and blocking: mechanisms that regulate association formation. Neuron, 20, 625–627.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Friedman, B. X., Blaisdell, A. P., Escobar, M. & Miller, R. R. (1998). Comparator mechanisms and conditioned inhibition: conditioned stimulus preexposure disrupts Pavlovian conditioned inhibition but not explicitly unpaired inhibition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 24, 453–466.Google Scholar
Gluck, M. A. & Bower, G. H. (1988). From fear conditioning to category learning: an adaptive network model. Journal of experimental Psychology: General, 117, 227–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holland, P. C. (1999). Overshadowing and blocking as acquisition deficits: no recovery after extinction of overshadowing or blocking cues. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 52B, 307–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holland, P. C. & Rescorla, R. A. (1975). Second order conditioning with food as the unconditioned stimulus. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 88, 459–467.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
James, J. H. & Wagner, A. R. (1980). One trial overshadowing: evidence of distributed processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 6, 188–205.Google Scholar
Kamin, L. J. (1968). “Attention-like” processes in classical conditioning. In Jones, M. R., ed., Symposium on the Prediction of Behavior: Aversive Stimulation. Miami, FL: University of Miami Press, pp. 9–31.Google Scholar
Kaufman, M. A. & Bolles, R. C. (1981). A nonassociative aspect of overshadowing. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 18, 318–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laborda, M. A., Witnauer, J. E. & Miller, R. R. (2010). Contrasting AAC and ABC renewal: the role of context associations. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Larrauri, J. A. & Schmajuk, N. A. (2008). Attentional, associative, and configural mechanisms in extinction. Psychological Review, 115, 640–676.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lysle, D. T. & Fowler, H. (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
McConnell, B. M., & Miller, R. R. (2010). Protection from extinction provided by a conditioned inhibitor. Learning and Behavior, 38(1), 68–79.CrossRef
McConnell, B. M., Wheeler, D. S., Urcelay, G. P. & Miller, R. R. (2009). Protection from latent inhibition provided by a conditioned inhibitor. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 35, 498–508.Google ScholarPubMed
McLaren, I. P. & Mackintosh, N. J. (2000). An elemental model of associative learning i: latent inhibition and perceptual learning. Animal Learning and Behavior, 28, 211–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Melchers, K. G., Lachnit, H. & Shanks, D. R. (2004). Within-compound associations in retrospective revaluation and in direct learning: a challenge for comparator theory. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 57B, 25–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, R. R. & Matzel, L. D. (1988). The comparator hypothesis: a response rule for the expression of associations. In Bower, G. H., ed., The Psychology of Learning and Motivation (vol. 22). San Diego, CA: Academic Press, pp. 51–92.Google Scholar
Miller, R. R. & Schachtman, T. R. (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
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
Pavlov, I. P. (1927). Conditioned Reflexes. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pineno, O. (2007). A response rule for positive and negative stimulus interaction in associative learning and performance. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 14, 1115–1124.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rashotte, M. E., Griffin, R. W. & Sisk, C. L. (1977). Second-order conditioning of the pigeon's keypeck. Animal Learning and Behavior, 5, 25–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rescorla, R. A. (1968). Probability of shock in the presence and absence of CS in fear conditioning. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 66(1), 1–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rescorla, R. A. (1970). Reduction in the effectiveness of reinforcement after prior excitatory conditioning. Learning and Motivation, 1, 372–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rescorla, R. A. (1982). Simultaneous second-order conditioning produces S-S learning in conditioned suppression. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 8, 23–32.Google ScholarPubMed
Rescorla, R. A. & Wagner, A. R. (1972). A theory of Pavlovian conditioning: variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and nonreinforcement. In Black, A. H. and Prokasy, W. F., eds., Classical Conditioning: ii. Current Theory and Research. New York: Appleton–Century–Crofts, pp. 64–99.Google Scholar
Rizley, R. C. & Rescorla, R. A. (1972). Associations in second-order conditioning and sensory preconditioning. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 81, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rusiniak, K. W., Hankins, W. G., Garcia, J. & Brett, L. P. (1979). Flavor-illness aversions: potentiation of odor by taste in rats. Behavioral and Neural Biology, 25, 1–17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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
Shanks, D. R. (1985). Forward and backward blocking in human contingency judgement. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 37B, 1–21.Google Scholar
Stout, S. C. & Miller, R. R. (2007). Sometimes competing retrieval (SOCR): a formalization of the extended comparator hypothesis. Psychological Review, 114, 759–783.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stout, S. C., Escobar, M. & Miller, R. R. (2004). Trial number and temporal relationship as joint determinants of second-order conditioning and conditioned inhibition. Learning and Behavior, 32, 230–239.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sutton, R. S (1988). Learning to predict by the methods of temporal differences. Machine Learning, 3, 9–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Urcelay, G. P. & Miller, R. R. (2008). Counteraction between two kinds of conditioned inhibition training. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 15, 103–107.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Urushihara, K. & Miller, R. R. (2009). Stimulus competition between a discrete cue and a training context: cue competition does not result from the division of a limited resource. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 35, 197–211.Google Scholar
Urushihara, K., Wheeler, D. S., Pineno, O. & Miller, R. R. (2005). An extended comparator hypothesis account of superconditioning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 31, 184–198.Google ScholarPubMed
Hamme, L. J. & Wasserman, E. A. (1994). Cue competition in causality judgements: the role of nonpresentation of compound stimulus elements. Learning and Motivation, 25, 127–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waelti, P., Dickinson, A. & Schultz, W. (2001). Dopamine responses comply with basic assumptions of formal learning theory. Nature, 412, 43–48.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wasserman, E. A. & Castro, L. (2005). Surprise and change: variations in the strength of present and absent cues in causal learning. Learning and Behavior, 33, 131–146.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wheeler, D. S. & Miller, R. R. (2008). Determinants of cue interactions. Behavioural Processes, 78, 191–203.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Witnauer, J. E. & Miller, R. R. (2007). Degraded contingency revisited: posttraining extinction of a cover stimulus attenuates a target cue's behavioral control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 33, 240–250.Google ScholarPubMed
Witnauer, J. E. & Miller, R. R. (2009). Contrasting overexpectation and extinction. Behavioural Processes, 81, 322–327.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Witnauer, J. E. & Miller, R. R. (2010). The error in total error reduction. Learning and Behavior.
Witnauer, J. E. & Miller, R. R. (in press). Some determinants of second-order conditioning. Learning and Behavior.
Witnauer, J. E., Urcelay, G. P. & Miller, R. R. (2008). Reduced blocking as a result of increasing the number of blocking cues. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 15, 651–655.CrossRefGoogle 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
×