Associative change in Pavlovian conditioning: A reappraisal.

Robert A. Rescorla changed how Pavlovian conditioning was studied and interpreted. His empirical contributions were fundamental and theoretically driven. One involved testing a central tenet of the model that he developed with Allan R. Wagner. The Rescorla-Wagner learning rule uses a pooled error term to determine changes in a directional association between the representations of the conditioned stimulus (CS) and unconditioned stimulus (US). This learning rule predicts that 2 equally salient CSs (A and B) will undergo equivalent associative change when they are conditioned in compound (i.e., AB→US). Rescorla's results suggested that this was not the case (e.g., Rescorla, 2000). Here, we show that these results can be reconciled with a model that uses a learning rule with a pooled error term once that rule is applied equivalently to all of the stimuli presented on a given trial, and the resulting reciprocal associations (directly and indirectly) contribute to performance. This model, called HeiDI, integrates several features of Rescorla's research and theorizing while addressing an issue that he recognized required further analysis: how learning is translated into performance. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Individual variation in the vigor and form of Pavlovian conditioned responses: Analysis of a model system.

Pavlovian conditioning results in individual variation in the vigor and form of acquired behaviors. Here, we describe a general-process model of associative learning (HeiDI; How excitation and inhibition determine ideo-motion) that provides an analysis for such variation together with a range of other important group-level phenomena. The model takes as its starting point the idea that pairings of a conditioned stimulus (CS) and an unconditioned stimulus (US) result in the formation of reciprocal associations between their central representations. The asymptotic values of these associations and the rate at which these are reached are held to be influenced by the perceived salience of the CS (αCS) and US (ßUS). Importantly, whether this associative knowledge is exhibited in behavior that reflects the properties of the CS (e.g., sign-tracking) or US (e.g., goal-tracking) is also influenced by the relative values of αCS and ßUS. In this way, HeiDI provides an analysis for both quantitative and qualitative individual differences generated by Pavlovian conditioning procedures.

Individual differences in the nature of conditioned behavior across a conditioned stimulus: Adaptation and application of a model.

Pavlovian conditioning procedures produce marked individual differences in the form of conditioned behavior. For example, when rats are given conditioning trials in which the temporary insertion of a lever into an operant chamber (the conditioned stimulus, CS) is paired with the delivery of food (the unconditioned stimulus, US), they exhibit knowledge of the lever-food relationship in different ways. For some rats (known as sign-trackers), interactions with the lever dominate, while for others (goal-trackers), approaching the food well dominates. A formal model of Pavlovian conditioning (HeiDI) attributes such individual differences in behavior to variations in the perceived salience of the CS and US. An application of the model in which the perceived salience of the CS declines (i.e., adapts) across its duration predicts changes in these individual differences within the presentation of the CS: The sign-tracking bias is predicted to decline and goal-tracking bias is predicted to increase across the presentation of a lever. The accuracy of these predictions was confirmed through analysis of archival data from female and male rats. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

Elaboration of a model of Pavlovian learning and performance: HeiDI.

The model elaborated here adapts the influential pooled error term, first described by Wagner and Rescorla (Rescorla & Wagner, 1972; Wagner & Rescorla, 1972), to govern the formation of reciprocal associations between any pair of stimuli that are presented on a given trial. In the context of Pavlovian conditioning, these stimuli include various conditioned and unconditioned stimuli. This elaboration enables the model to deal with cue competition phenomena, including the relative validity effect, and evidence implicating separate error terms and attentional processes in association formation. The model also includes a performance rule, which provides a natural basis for (individual) variation in the strength and nature of conditioned behaviors that are observed in Pavlovian conditioning procedures. The new model thereby begins to address theoretical and empirical issues that were apparent when the Rescorla-Wagner model was first described, together with research inspired by the model over the ensuing 50 years. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

HeiDI: A model for Pavlovian learning and performance with reciprocal associations.

Associative treatments of how Pavlovian conditioning affects conditioned behavior are rudimentary: A simple ordinal mapping is held to exist between the strength of an association (V) between a conditioned stimulus (CS) and an unconditioned stimulus (US; i.e., VCS-US) and conditioned behavior in a given experimental preparation. The inadequacy of this simplification is highlighted by recent studies that have taken multiple measures of conditioned behavior: Different measures of conditioned behavior provide the basis for drawing opposite conclusions about VCS-US across individual animals. Here, we develop a simple model involving reciprocal associations between the CS and US (VCS-US and VUS-CS) that simulates these qualitative individual differences in conditioned behavior. The new model, HeiDI (How excitation and inhibition Determine Ideo-motion), enables a broad range of phenomena to be accommodated, which are either beyond the scope of extant models or require them to appeal to additional (learning) processes. It also provides an impetus for new lines of inquiry and generates novel predictions. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

The amount of exposure determines generalization in animal perceptual learning using short inter-stimulus intervals.

While human and animal perceptual learning (PL) had sometimes yielded similar results, there is evidence of some striking discrepancies. It has been proposed that such differences reflect the existence of multiple species-specific mechanisms, especially regarding to humans. However, it is also possible that those discrepancies are caused by procedural differences. One of the most important differences between PL experiments in humans and laboratory animals is the inter-stimulus interval (ISI) used. In the former, short ISI reliably produces PL, while in the latter reducing the ISI leads to paradoxical results. We report two experiments with rodents to prove that the length of exposure is a key element under such conditions. In the first experiment we replicated the paradoxical results already present in the literature using a short exposure. In a follow up experiment, we increased the exposure trials and obtained normal PL in animals using short ISI. Our results support current associative theories of PL and highlight the impact of procedural differences on this phenomenon.

The nature of phenotypic variation in Pavlovian conditioning.

Pavlovian conditioning procedures result in dramatic individual differences in the topography of learnt behaviors in rats: When the temporary insertion of a lever into an operant chamber is paired with food pellets, some rats (known as sign-trackers) predominantly interact with the lever, while others (known as goal-trackers) predominantly approach the food well. Two experiments examined the sensitivity of these two behaviors to changing reinforcement contingencies in groups of male and female rats exhibiting the different phenotypes (i.e., sign-trackers and goal-trackers). In both phenotypes, behavior oriented to the food well was more sensitive to contingency changes (e.g., a reversal in which of two levers was reinforced) than was lever-oriented behavior. That is, the nature of the two behaviors differed independently of the rats in which they were manifest. These results indicate that the behavioral phenotypes reflect the parallel operation of a stimulus-stimulus associative process that gives rise to food-well activity and a stimulus-response process that gives rise to lever-oriented activity, rather than the operation of a single process (e.g., stimulus-stimulus) that generates both behaviors. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved).

The role of stimulus comparison in animal perceptual learning: Effects of a distractor placement.

Research on perceptual learning shows that the way stimuli are presented leads to different outcomes. The intermixed/blocked (I/B) effect is one of these outcomes, and different mechanisms have been proposed to explain it. In human research, it seems that comparison between stimuli is important, and the placement of a distractor between the pre-exposed stimuli interferes with the effect. Results from animal research are usually interpreted in different terms because the type of procedure normally used in animal perceptual learning does not favour comparison. In our experiments, we explore the possibility that a distractor placed between the to-be-discriminated stimuli may interfere with the perceptual learning process in rats. In Experiment 1, two flavoured solutions are presented in an I/B fashion, with a short time lapse between them to favour comparison, showing the typical I/B effect. In Experiment 2, we introduced a distractor in between the solutions, abolishing this effect. Experiment 3 further replicates this by comparing two intermixed groups with or without distractor. The results replicate the findings from human research, suggesting that comparison also plays an important role in animal perceptual learning.

The role of instructions in perceptual learning using complex visual stimuli.

Although modeled on procedures used with nonhuman animals, some recent studies of perceptual learning in humans, using complex visual stimuli, differ in that they usually instruct participants to look for differences between the to-be-discriminated stimuli. This could encourage the use of mechanisms not available to animal subjects. To investigate the role of instructions, in 2 experiments, participants were given preexposure to checkerboards that were similar except for the presence of a small distinctive feature on each. For participants instructed to look for differences, performance on a same-different test was enhanced by preexposure in which the critical stimuli were presented on alternate trials-the usual perceptual learning effect. No such effect was found in 2 other preexposure conditions: when participants were told only to look at the stimuli and not explicitly told to look for differences; and when participants were instructed on an alternative task requiring attention to the stimuli. These results indicate a role for a learning process reinforced by success in finding stimulus differences; they challenge previous interpretations of results from studies using complex visual stimuli in the study of perceptual learning. (PsycINFO Database Record

The effect of additional exposure to the unique features in a perceptual learning task can be attributed to a location bias.

It has been suggested that human perceptual learning could be explained in terms of a better memory encoding of the unique features during intermixed exposure. However, it is possible that a location bias could play a relevant role in explaining previous results of perceptual learning studies using complex visual stimuli. If this were the case, the only relevant feature would be the location, rather than the content, of the unique features. To further explore this possibility, we attempted to replicate the results of Lavis, Kadib, Mitchell, and Hall (2011, Experiment 2), which showed that additional exposure to the unique elements resulted in better discrimination than simple intermixed exposure. We manipulated the location of the unique elements during the additional exposure. In one experiment, they were located in the same position as that when presented together with the common element. In another experiment, the unique elements were located in the center of the screen, regardless of where they were located together with the common element. Our results showed that additional exposure only improved discrimination when the unique elements were presented in the same position as when they were presented together with the common element. The results reported here do not provide support for the explanation of the effects of additional exposure of the unique elements in terms of a better memory encoding and instead suggest an explanation in terms of location bias.