Abstract
Conditioning trials that are massed in time produce less conditioning than those that are spaced in time. Four experiments with rat subjects examined whether a recent conditioning trial interferes with conditioning on the next trial by temporarily “priming” information in short-term memory (e.g., Wagner, 1978, 1981). We used appetitive conditioning procedures in which priming trials preceded target trials by 60 sec. When the priming trials were nonreinforced presentations of a conditioned stimulus (CS), the CS had to be the same CS as the one on the target trial to interfere with conditioning. When priming trials were actual CS-unconditioned stimulus (US) pairings, the CS identity did not matter; the US was the event that interfered with conditioning on the next trial. Reinforced trials reduced performance in a way that did not depend on context blocking. The results suggest that CS and US priming effects do contribute to conditioning deficits observed with massed trial procedures. The results are consistent with Wagner’s (1981) “sometimes opponent process,” or SOP, model, although a result that is paradoxical for the model suggests that recent USs may have motivational as well as memory effects.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Barela, P. B. (1999). Theoretical mechanisms underlying the trial spacing effect in Pavlovian conditioning.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,25, 177–193.
Barnet, R. C., Grahame, N. J., &Miller, R. R. (1995). Trial spacing effects in Pavlovian conditioning: A role for local context.Animal Learning & Behavior,23, 340–348.
Best, M. R., &Gemberling, G. A. (1977). The role of short-term processes in the CS preexposure effect and the delay of reinforcement gradient in long-delay taste-aversion learning.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,3, 253–263.
Best, M. R., Gemberling, G. A., &Johnson, P. E. (1979). Disrupting the conditioned stimulus preexposure effect in flavor-aversion learning: Effects of interoceptive distractor manipulations.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,5, 321–334.
Bouton, M. E., &Sunsay, C. (2003). Importance of trials versus accumulating time across trials in partially reinforced appetitive conditioning.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,29, 62–77.
Dickinson, A., &Balleine, B. W. (1994). Motivational control of goal-directed action.Animal Learning & Behavior,22, 1–18.
Domjan, M. (1980). Effects of intertrial interval on taste aversion learning in rats.Physiology & Behavior,25, 117–125.
Fox, G. D., &Holland, P. C. (1998). Neurotoxic hippocampal lesions fail to impair reinstatement of an appetitively conditioned response.Behavioral Neuroscience,112, 255–260.
Gallistel, C. R., &Gibbon, J. (2000). Time, rate, and conditioning.Psychological Review,107, 289–344.
Gibbon, J., &Balsam, P. D. (1981). Spreading associations in time. In C. M. Locurto, H. S. Terrace, & J. Gibbon (Eds.),Autoshaping and conditioning theory (pp. 219–253). New York: Academic Press.
Haselgrove, M., &Pearce, J. M. (2003). Facilitation of extinction by an increase or decrease in trial duration.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,29, 153–166.
Holland, P. C. (2000). Trial and intertrial durations in appetitive conditioning in rats.Animal Learning & Behavior,28, 121–135.
Kamin, L. J. (1969). Predictability, surprise, attention, and conditioning. In R. Church & B. Campbell (Eds.),Punishment and aversive behavior (pp. 279–296). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Kaye, H., &Mackintosh, N. J. (1990). A change of context can enhance performance of an aversive but not of an appetitive conditioned response.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,42B, 113–134.
Kirkpatrick, K., &Church, R. M. (2000). Independent effects of stimulus and cycle duration in conditioning: The role of timing processes.Animal Learning & Behavior,28, 373–388.
Lattal, M. K. (1999). Trial and intertrial durations in Pavlovian conditioning: Issues of learning and performance.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,25, 433–450.
Pavlov, I. P. (1927).Conditioned reflexes (G. V. Anrep, Trans). London: Oxford University Press.
Pearce, J. M., &Hall, G. (1980). A model for Pavlovian learning: Variations in the effectiveness of conditioned but not of unconditioned stimuli.Psychological Review,87, 532–552.
Pfautz, P. L., &Wagner, A. R. (1976). Transient variations in responding to Pavlovian conditioned stimuli have implications for the mechanisms of priming.Animal Learning & Behavior,4, 107–112.
Randich, A., &Ross, R. T. (1985). Mechanisms of blocking by contextual stimuli.Learning & Motivation,15, 106–117.
Rescorla, R. A., &Durlach, P. J. (1987). The role of context in intertribal interval effects in autoshaping.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,39B, 35–40.
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.
Terrace, H. S., Gibbon, J., Farrell, L., &Baldock, M. D. (1975). Temporal factors influencing the acquisition and maintenance of an autoshaped keypeck.Animal Learning & Behavior,3, 53–62.
Terry, W. S. (1976). Effects of priming unconditioned stimulus representation in short-term memory on Pavlovian conditioning.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,2, 354–269.
Wagner, A. R. (1978). Expectancies and the priming of STM. In S. H. Hulse, H. Fowler, & W. K. Honig (Eds.),Cognitive processes in animal behavior (pp. 177–209). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Wagner, A. R. (1981). SOP: A model of automatic memory processing in animal behavior. In N. E. Spear & R. R. Miller (Eds.),Information processing in animals: Memory mechanisms (pp. 5–47). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Whitlow, J. W., Jr. (1975). Short-term memory in habituation and dishabituation.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,1, 189–206.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This research was supported by Grant RO1 MH64847 from the National Institute of Mental Health to M.E.B.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Sunsay, C., Stetson, L. & Bouton, M.E. Memory priming and trial spacing effects in Pavlovian learning. Animal Learning & Behavior 32, 220–229 (2004). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196023
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196023