Advertisement

Animal Learning & Behavior

, Volume 27, Issue 4, pp 369–378 | Cite as

Enhanced Pavlovian conditioning with a change in appetitive reinforcer

  • John M. PearceEmail author
  • Edward S. Redhead
Article

Abstract

In three experiments, rats received appetitive conditioning with two unconditioned stimuli (US+ and US*) that supported a similar conditioned response. Stimulus A was first paired with US+, and then, for a second stage of training, the compound AB was paired with US*. Subsequent test trials with A revealed an abnormally strong conditioned response. The findings from additional groups indicated that such enhanced conditioning with A depended on the presence of B in the second stage and on the use of US+ and US* for the two training stages. A modification to a configural theory of conditioning is proposed in order to explain the results.

Keywords

Test Trial Unconditioned Stimulus Conditioned Response Associative Strength Conditioning Trial 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Chorozyna, H. (1962). Some properties of conditioned inhibition.Acta Biologiae Experimentalis,22, 5–13.Google Scholar
  2. Delamater, A. R. (1996). Effects of several extinction treatments upon the integrity of Pavlovian stimulus-outcome associations.Animal Learning & Behavior,24, 437–449.Google Scholar
  3. Ganesan, R., &Pearce, J. M. (1988). Effect of changing the unconditioned stimulus on appetitive blocking.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,14, 280–291.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Honey, R. C., &Hall, G. (1989). Acquired equivalence and distinctiveness of cues.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,15, 338–346.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Konorski, J. (1967).Integrative activity of the brain. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  6. Pearce, J. M. (1987). A model of stimulus generalization for Pavlovian conditioning.Psychological Review,94, 61–73.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Pearce, J. M. (1994). Similarity and discrimination: A selective review and a connectionist model.Psychological Review,101, 587–607.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Pearce, J. M., &Redhead, E. S. (1995). Supernormal conditioning.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,21, 155–165.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Rescorla, R. A. (1969). Pavlovian conditioned inhibition.Psychological Bulletin,72, 77–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Rescorla, R. A. (1971). Variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and nonreinforcement following prior inhibitory conditioning.Learning & Motivation,2, 113–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Rescorla, R. A. (1989). Redundant treatments of neutral and excitatory stimuli in autoshaping.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processses,15, 212–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Rescorla, R. A. (1996). Spontaneous recovery after training with multiple outcomes.Animal Learning & Behavior,24, 11–18.Google Scholar
  13. Rescorla, R. A. (1997). Spontaneous recovery after Pavlovian conditioning with multiple outcomes.Animal Learning & Behavior,25, 99–107.Google Scholar
  14. Rescorla, R. A. (1999). Associative changes in elements and compounds when the other is reinforced.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,25, 247–255.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Rescorla, R. A., &Wagner, A. R. (1972). A theory of Pavlovian conditioning: Variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and nonreinforcement. In A. H. Black & W. F. Prokasy (Eds.),Classical conditioning II: Current research and theory (pp. 64–99). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
  16. Soltysik, S. S., Wolfe, G. E., Nicholas, T., Wilson, W. J., &Garcia-Sanchez, J. L. (1983). Blocking of inhibitory conditioning with a serial conditioned stimulus-conditioned inhibitor compound: Maintenance of acquired behavior without an unconditioned stimulus.Learning & Motivation,14, 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Wagner, A. R. (1971). Elementary associations. In H. H. Kendler & J. T. Spence (Eds.),Essays in neobehavorism: A memorial volume to Kenneth W. Spence (pp. 187–213). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
  18. Wagner, A. R., &Brandon, S. E. (1989). Evolution of a structured connectionist model of Pavlovian conditioning (AESOP). In S. B. Klein & R. R. Mowrer (Eds.),Contemporary learning theories: Pavlovian conditioning and the status of traditional learning theory (pp. 149–189). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  19. Wagner, A. R., &Rescorla, R. A. (1972). Inhibition in Pavlovian conditioning: Application of a theory. In R. A. Boakes & M. S. Halliday (Eds.),Inhibition and learning (pp. 301–336). London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  20. Williams, B. A. (1994). Blocking despite changes in reinforcer identity.Animal Learning & Behavior,22, 442–457.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of PsychologyCardiff UniversityCardiffWales

Personalised recommendations