Abstract
Two conditioned lick suppression experiments with rats used feature-negative training (A-footshock trials intermixed with nonreinforced XA presentations) to analyze the role of the number of XA compound presentations and the temporal relationship of the elements within the compound (simultaneous or serial) as determinants of the resulting behavioral control. Second-order conditioning (i.e., excitatory behavioral control by X) was observed to decline as the number of XA compound trials was increased. This decline was more rapid if X and A were presented simultaneously, as opposed to serially (i.e., X before A; Experiment 1). Conditioned inhibition to X, as assessed by a summation test (Experiment 1) and a retardation test (Experiment 2), increased with the number of XA trials and did so more quickly for simultaneous than for serial pairings of X and A. The results help to clarify previously discrepant findings regarding factors that promote excitation versus inhibition with this protocol.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Barnet, R. C., &Miller, R. R. (1996). Temporal encoding as a determinant of inhibitory control.Learning & Motivation,27, 73–91.
Batson, J. D., &Batsell, W. R., Jr. (2000). Augmentation, not blocking, in an A+/AX+ flavor-conditioning procedure.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,7, 466–471.
Blaisdell, A. P., Gunther, L. M., &Miller, R. R. (1999). Recovery from blocking achieved by extinguishing the block stimulus.Animal Learning & Behavior,27, 63–76.
Cole, R. P., Barnet, R. C., &Miller, R. R. (1995). Effect of relative stimulus validity: Learning or performance deficit?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,21, 293–303.
Durlach, P. J., &Rescorla, R. A. (1980). Potentiation rather than overshadowing in flavor-aversion learning: An analysis in terms of within-compound associations.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,6, 175–187.
Gallistel, C. R., &Gibbon, J. (2000). Time, rate, and conditioning.Psychological Review,107, 289–344.
Gibbon, J., &Balsam, P. (1981). Spreading association in time. In C. M. Locurto, H. S. Terrace, & J. Gibbon (Eds.),Autoshaping and conditioning theory (pp. 219–253). New York: Academic Press.
Gibbs, C. M., Cool, V., Land, T., Kehoe, E. J., &Gormezano, I. (1991). Second-order conditioning of the rabbit’s nictitating membrane response: Interstimulus interval and frequency of CS-CS pairings.Integrative Physiological & Behavioral Science,26, 282–295.
Herendeen, D., &Anderson, D. C. (1968). Dual effects of a second-order conditioned stimulus: Excitation and inhibition.Psychonomic Science,13, 15–16.
Holland, P. C. (1985). The nature of conditioned inhibition in serial and simultaneous feature negative discriminations. In R. R. Miller & N. E. Spear (Eds.),Information processing in animals: Conditioned inhibition (pp. 267–297). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Holland, P. C., &Lamarre, J. (1984). Transfer of inhibition after serial and simultaneous discrimination training.Learning & Motivation,15, 219–243.
Holland, P. C., &Rescorla, R. A. (1975). Second-order conditioning with food as the unconditioned stimulus.Journal of Comparative & Physiological Psychology,88, 459–467.
Kamin, L. J. (1969). Predictability, surprise, attention, and conditioning. In B. A. Campbell & M. R. Church (Eds.),Punishment and aversive behavior (pp. 279–296). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Kaufman, M. A., &Bolles, R. C. (1981). A nonassociative aspect of overshadowing.Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society,18, 318–320.
Kehoe, E. J., Feyer, A.-M., &Moses, J. L. (1981). Second-order conditioning of the rabbit’s nictitating membrane response as a function of the CS2-CS1 intervals and CS1-US.Animal Learning & Behavior,9, 304–315.
Lamarre, J., &Holland, P. C. (1987). Transfer of inhibition after serial feature negative discrimination training.Learning & Motivation,18, 319–342.
Lieberman, D. A. (2000).Learning: Behavior and cognition. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Mackintosh, N. J. (1975). A theory of attention: Variations in the associability of stimuli with reinforcement.Psychological Review,82, 276–298.
Maisiak, R., &Frey, P.W. (1977). Second-order conditioning: The importance of stimulus overlap on second-order trials.Animal Learning & Behavior,5, 309–314.
Mazur, J. E., &Wagner, A. R. (1982). An episodic model of associative learning. In M. L. Commons, R. J. Herrnstein, & A. R. Wagner (Eds.),Quantitative analyses of behavior: Vol. 3. Acquisition (pp. 3–39). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
McLaren, I. P. L., &Mackintosh, N. J. (2000). An elemental model of associative learning: I. Latent inhibition and perceptual learning.Animal Learning & Behavior,28, 211–246.
Miller, R. R., &Matzel, L. D. (1988). The comparator hypothesis: A response rule for the expression of associations. In G. H. Bower (Ed.),The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 22, pp. 51–92). San Diego: Academic Press.
Miller, R. R., &Schachtman, T. R. (1985). Conditioning context as an associative baseline: Implications for response generation and the nature of conditioned inhibition. In R. R. Miller & N. E. Spear (Eds.),Information processing in animals: Conditioned inhibition (pp. 51–88). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Papini, M. R. (2002).Comparative psychology: Evolution and development of behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Papini, M. R., &Bitterman, M. E. (1993). The two-test strategy in the study of inhibitory conditioning.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,19, 342–352.
Pavlov, I. P. (1927).Conditioned reflexes (G. V. Anrep, Trans.). London: Oxford University Press.
Pearce, J. M. (1987). A model for stimulus generalization in Pavlovian conditioning.Psychological Review,94, 61–73.
Pearce, J. M., &Hall, G. (1980). A model for Pavlovian conditioning: Variations in the effectiveness of conditioned but not unconditioned stimuli.Psychological Review,87, 532–552.
Rashotte, M. E., Marshall, B. S., &O’Connell, J. M. (1981). Signaling functions of the second-order CS: Partial reinforcement during second-order conditioning of the pigeon’s keypeck.Animal Learning & Behavior,9, 253–260.
Rescorla, R. A. (1969). Pavlovian conditioned inhibition.Psychological Bulletin,72, 77–94.
Rescorla, R. A. (1973). Second-order conditioning: Implications for theories of learning. In F. J. McGuigan & D. B. Lumsden (Eds.),Contemporary approaches to conditioning and learning (pp. 127–150). Washington, DC: Winston.
Rescorla, R. A. (1982). Simultaneous second-order conditioning produces S-S learning in conditioned suppression.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,8, 23–32.
Rescorla, R. A. (1985). Conditioned inhibition and facilitation. In R. R. Miller & N. E. Spear (Eds.),Information processing in animals: Conditioned inhibition (pp. 299–326). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
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.
Rizley, R. C., &Rescorla, R. A. (1972). Associations in second-order conditioning and sensory preconditioning.Journal of Comparative & Physiological Psychology,81, 1–11.
Rusiniak, K. W., Hankins, W. G., Garcia, J., &Brett, L. P. (1979). Flavor-illness aversions: Potentiation of odor by taste in rats.Behavioral & Neural Biology,25, 1–17.
Spence, K.W. (1936). The nature of discrimination learning in animals.Psychological Review,43, 427–449.
Sutton, R. S., &Barto, A. G. (1981). Toward a modern theory of adaptive networks: Expectation and prediction.Psychological Review,88, 135–171.
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.
Wagner, A. R., Logan, F. A., Haberlandt, K., &Price, T. (1968). Stimulus selection and a modified continuity theory.Journal of Experimental Psychology,76, 171–180.
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). New York: Academic Press.
Yin, H., Barnet, R. C., &Miller, R. R. (1994). Second-order conditioning and Pavlovian conditioned inhibition: Operational similarities and differences.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,20, 419–442.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
Support for this research was provided by NIMH Grant 33881, and support for preparation of the manuscript was provided by NIMH Grant 064420. We thank Jeffrey Amundson, Francisco Arcediano, Daniel Burger, Oskar Pineño, Kouji Urushihara, and Daniel Wheeler for their insightful advice concerning all aspects of this research. Special thanks are due Raymond Chang, Jim Esposito, and Jennifer Kelschenbach for assistance in running the animals in what has become quasi-affectionately known as the “Monster Study.”
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Stout, S., Escobar, M. & Miller, R.R. Trial number and compound stimuli temporal relationship as joint determinants of second-order conditioning and conditioned inhibition. Animal Learning & Behavior 32, 230–239 (2004). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196024
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196024