The fate of redundant cues: Further analysis of the redundancy effect

Pearce, Dopson, Haselgrove, and Esber (Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 38, 167–179, 2012) conducted a series of experiments with rats and pigeons in which the conditioned responding elicited by two types of redundant cue was compared. One of these redundant cues was a blocked cue X from A+ AX+ training, whereas the other was cue Y from a simple discrimination BY+ CY–. Greater conditioned responding was elicited by X than by Y; we refer to this difference as the redundancy effect. To test an explanation of this effect in terms of comparator theory (Denniston, Savastano, & Miller, 2001), a single group of rats in Experiment 1 received training of the form A+ AX+ BY+ CY–, followed by an A– Y+ discrimination. Responding to the individual cues was tested both before and after the latter discrimination. In addition to a replication of the redundancy effect during the earlier test, we observed stronger responding to B than to X, both during the earlier test and, in contradiction of the theory, after the A– Y+ discrimination. In Experiment 2, a blocking group received A+ AX+, a continuous group received AX+ BX–, and a partial group received AX± BX± training. Subsequent tests with X again demonstrated the redundancy effect, but also revealed a stronger response in the partial than in the continuous group. This pattern of results is difficult to explain with error-correction theories that assume that stimuli compete for associative strength during conditioning. We suggest, instead, that the influence of a redundant cue is determined by its relationship with the event with which it is paired, and by the attention it is paid

Brief Optogenetic Inhibition of Dopamine Neurons Mimics Endogenous Negative Reward Prediction Errors

Correlative studies have strongly linked phasic changes in dopamine activity with reward prediction error signaling. But causal evidence that these brief changes in firing actually serve as error signals to drive associative learning is more tenuous. While there is direct evidence that brief increases can substitute for positive prediction errors, there is no comparable evidence that similarly brief pauses can substitute for negative prediction errors. Lacking such evidence, the effect of increases in firing could reflect novelty or salience, variables also correlated with dopamine activity. Here we provide such evidence, showing in a modified Pavlovian over-expectation task that brief pauses in the firing of dopamine neurons in rat ventral tegmental area at the time of reward are sufficient to mimic the effects of endogenous negative prediction errors. These results support the proposal that brief changes in the firing of dopamine neurons serve as full-fledged bidirectional prediction error signals