Slow learning about inhibitors in human contingency learning

Conditioned inhibition is observed after training in which a stimulus signals the absence of an otherwise expected outcome. For example, in Pavlov’s (1927) procedure for conditioned inhibition, A+ trials are interspersed with AX- trials, where (+) indicates reinforcement and (-) notes non-reinforcement. Most models of learning assume that the surprisingness of the outcome is important for learning. Such models predict weaker terminal responding to a previous inhibitor than to a previously neutral stimulus after cue-outcome pairings. Such models also predict that learning about the inhibitor will be faster than learning about the neutral stimulus because the inhibitor is more surprising. To empirically test these different predictions, a 2 (Inhibitor vs. Neutral stimulus) X 3 (Number of Trials [Zero vs. One vs. Two] mixed design was conducted in a human contingency learning procedure. Our experiment revealed faster excitatory learning for a previously neutral stimulus than for a previous inhibitory stimulus, which is inconsistent with the view that surprise drives learning

Performance Factors in Associative Learning: Assessment of the Sometimes Competing Retrieval Model

Previous simulations revealed that the sometimes competing retrieval model (SOCR; Stout & Miller, 2007), which assumes local error reduction, can explain many cue interaction phenomena that elude traditional associative theories based on total error reduction. Here we applied SOCR to a new set of Pavlovian phenomena. Simulations used a single set of fixed parameters to simulate each basic effect (e.g., blocking) and, for specific experiments using different procedures, used fitted parameters discovered through hillclimbing. In Simulation 1, SOCR was successfully applied to basic acquisition, including the ‘overtraining effect,’ which is context dependent. In Simulation 2, we applied SOCR to basic extinction and renewal. SOCR anticipated these effects with both fixed parameters and best fitting parameters, although the renewal effects were weaker than those observed in some experiments. In Simulation 3a, feature negative training was simulated, including the often observed transition from second-order conditioning to conditioned inhibition. In Simulation 3b, SOCR predicted the observation that conditioned inhibition after feature-negative and differential conditioning depends on intertrial interval. In Simulation 3c, SOCR successfully predicted failure of conditioned inhibition to extinguish with presentations of the inhibitor alone under most circumstances. In Simulation 4, cue competition, including blocking (4a), recovery from relative validity (4b), and unblocking (4c), were simulated. In Simulation 5, SOCR correctly predicted that inhibitors gain more behavioral control than excitors when they are trained in compound. Simulation 6 demonstrated that SOCR explains the slower acquisition observed following CS-weak shock pairings

Renewal in the cognitive and emotional domains: comparing novelty-facilitated extinction with counterconditioning and extinction

The primary file is a ReadMe file and additional file is the dataset

Comparing associative interspersed interference with proactive and retroactive interference

The main file is the ReadMe file, with four dataset files added in the additional file section

Data for: Sometimes competing retrieval predicts the selective role of within-compound associations in retrospective revaluation.

Scripts used to produce the simulations reported in Witnauer, Rhodes, Kysor, and Narasiwodeyar (submitted)

Within-compound associations in cue competition and retrosepective revaluation

Retrospective revaluation occurs when posttraining associative inflation or deflation of a cue results in changes in the response potential of an absent stimulus. For example, in backward blocking situations, Phase 1 AX+ followed by Phase 2 A+ trials result in weaker responding to X at test than a comparable control cue. Relatedly, cue competition involves reduced learning when cues are trained together than when they are trained separately. For example, in forward blocking, A+ before AX+ trials reduce learning about X. In both cue competition and retrospective revaluation, animals may learn about and respond based on direct associations with the outcome (e.g., X-outcome associations) or within-compound e.g., X-A) associations. Attempts to reveal the role of within-compound associations in cue competition and retrospective revaluation have produced divergent conclusions. Towards resolving these discrepancies in the literature, we conducted computer simulations of models that varied in their treatment of within-compound associations in cue competition and retrospective revaluation. Our simulations revealed that a model that uses within-compound associations in both retrospective revaluation and in conventional cue competition is able to explain the central results as well as models that assume a selective role for within-compound associations in retrospective revaluation