Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 35

Classical Conditioning II

What are the necessary conditions for classical conditioning?

Trace

CS

US

Explicitly Unpaired

CS

minutes

US

CS

Weaker conditioned responding

Delay

CS

US

Is contiguity necessary?

Conditioned taste aversion methodology

Distinctive flavor

LiCl injection

Choice Test

?
vs

Is contiguity sufficient?

CS-US belongingness

From Garcia & Koelling, 1966

Conclusion thus far:


Forward pairings (contiguity) neither necessary nor sufficient.
Something more is required
Belongingness Kamin: Surprise

Leon Kamin: Blocking


US has to be surprising to the animal for learning of the CS-US association to occur.
Group Block Control Phase 1 AUS BUS Phase 2 AXUS AXUS Test X? X?

Because A already predicts the US in the Blocking group, the US is not surprising during Phase 2 trials.

Conclusion thus far:


Forward pairings (contiguity) neither necessary nor sufficient.
Something more is required
Belongingness Kamin: Surprise Relative salience

Salience effects
Overshadowing in compound conditioning, the more salient CS wins
Group Overshadow Control Treatment Ax+ x+ Test x cr CR

Conclusion thus far:


Forward pairings (contiguity) neither necessary nor sufficient. Something more is required
Belongingness Kamin: Surprise Contingency Relative salience Contingency

Rescorlas contingency experiment


CS
US

Correlated Group

Rate of US Occurrence: 0.1US/sec during CS; 0US/sec outside of CS

Uncorrelated Group

CS
US

Rate of US Occurrence: 0.1US/sec during CS; 0.1US/sec outside of CS

Rescorlas contingency experiment


CS
US

Correlated Group

Rate of US Occurrence: 0.1US/sec during CS; 0US/sec outside of CS

Uncorrelated Group

CS
US

Rate of US Occurrence: 0.1US/sec during CS; 0.1US/sec outside of CS

Rescorlas contingency experiment


CS
US

Correlated Group

Uncorrelated Group

CS US
P (US|CS) = 0.5 P(US|noCS) = 0.5

P(US | CS)

P(US | ~CS))

Results of Rescorlas (1968) Contingency Experiment

P(US | CS) = .4 for all groups

CR

.1

.2
P(US | noCS)

.4

Its a little like


Animals are scientists, trying to make causal predictions.
trying to determine whether the US is contingent on the CS

Other Contingency Phenomena


US preexposure effect: Presenting the US repeatedly prior to CS-US trials retards acquisition. CS preexposure effect: Presenting the CS repeatedly prior to CS-US trials retards acquisition. (a.k.a. Latent Inhibition)

US and CS preexposure designs


US preexposure
Group Experimental Control Phase 1 US ---Phase 2 CSUS CSUS Test CS cr CR

CS preexposure
Group Experimental Control Phase 1 CS---Phase 2 CSUS CSUS Test CS cr CR

Factors That Affect Conditioning


Contiguity: The closer two stimuli are in space and time, the stronger can be the association between them. Belongingness: The fit between CS and US Contingency: Information value. The higher the correlation between two stimuli, the stronger the conditioned response. Salience: More intense or noticeable stimuli condition more rapidly.

Other conditioning phenomena discovered by Pavlov


Conditioned inhibition: A stimulus predicts the absence of the US.

Second-order conditioning: Pairing a neutral stimulus with a CS confers associative strength upon the neutral stimulus

Conditioned Inhibition
X
A US A A US

X
A US X A US A A US A US A

Second-Order Conditioning
A+/AX- training. Look familiar? However, number of AX- trials is critical - Few AX- trials leads to SOC - Many AX- trials leads to conditioned inhibition

also, SOC typically produced in two phases. - A+ training followed by AX+ training.

Design of Conditioned Inhibition Phase 1 Test X A+/AXCI


(Many AX- trials -- tens to hundreds)

Design of Second-Order Conditioning Phase 1 Phase 2 Test X A+ AXCR


(Few AX- trials -- typically not more than 8-10)

Classical Conditioning Simulator

The Rescorla-Wagner Model (1972)


VCS = (-VSUM)
VCS = change in associative strength of CS VCS = associative strength of CS = Asymptote of learning

Learning rate parameters = CS salience (0-1; 0 = no CS) = US salience (0-1; 0 = no US)

R-W and Blocking


VCS = (-VSUM)
Phase 2

Group Block Acq

Ph. 1 A+ B+

Ph. 2 AX+ AX+

VA
1 1 1 0

Blocking group VX = ( -VA+X) VX = 1(1 [1+0]) = 0

Acq group VX = ( -VA+X) VX = 1(1 [0+0]) = 0

Rescorla-Wagner Spreadsheet

R-W model accounts for:


Blocking (Kamin)

Overshadowing (Pavlov)
Ax+, A-US association develops faster than X-US CSs have unequal learning rate parameters.

Conditioned inhibition (Pavlov)


A+/AX-, (-VA+X) = (0-[1+0]) = -1 X develops negative associative strength!

Overexpectation Effect
Group Experimental Control Ph. 1 A+/X+ A+/X+ Ph. 2 AX+ --Test X cr CR

What is learned in CC?


Clark Hull (S-R theory) Pavlov (S-S theory)

CS US

UR

CS US

UR

Test Devaluation Experiment


Holland & Straub (1979) Train TonePellet Devaluation PelletRotation Pellet | Rotation Test ToneCR Tone CR