Abstract
In three between-groups blocking experiments with rats, two concurrent and one forward, several common control procedures were employed: Reinforced trials with the putative blocking stimulus were either omitted entirely (Kamin control), replaced by unsignaled reinforcements (Wagner control), or replaced by reinforced trials with a different stimulus (C1 control). In each experiment, parallel treatments with the target stimulus absent during training served to examine the possibility that differential responding in tests with the target stimulus might be traced solely to differential exposure to the nontarget stimuli. In Experiment 1, responding by a concurrent blocking group during the test was no different than responding by a Kamin control group, and responding by a Wagner control group was greater than that of either of the other groups—a pattern of results, mirrored in the performance of the target-absent groups, that could be attributed to the elevation of contextual excitation by unsignaled reinforcement. In Experiment 2, responding in the test by a concurrent blocking group was no different than that by a C1 control group. In Experiment 3, a finding of less responding by a forward blocking group than by a C1 control group when the target stimulus was present during training, but not when it was absent, provided plausible evidence of blocking.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Blaser, R. E., Couvillon, P. A., & Bitterman, M. E. (2004). Backward blocking in honeybees. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 57B, 349–360.
Blaser, R. E., Couvillon, P. A., & Bitterman, M. E. (2006). Blocking and pseudoblocking: New control experiments with honeybees. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59, 68–76.
Kamin, L. J. (1969). Selective association and conditioning. In N. J. Mackintosh & W. K. Honig (Eds.), Fundamental issues in associative learning (pp. 42–64). Halifax, NS: Dalhousie University Press.
McNally, G. P., & Cole, S. (2006). Opioid receptors in the midbrain periaqueductal gray regulate prediction errors during Pavlovian fear conditioning. Behavioral Neuroscience, 120, 313–323.
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.
Rescorla, R. A. (1981). Within-signal learning in autoshaping. Learning & Behavior, 9, 245–252.
Rescorla, R. A., & Wagner, A. R. (1972). A theory of Pavlovian conditioning: Variation 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.
Smith, B. H., & Cobey, S. (1994). The olfactory memory of the honeybee, Apis mellifera: II. Blocking between odorants in binary mixtures. Journal of Experimental Biology, 195, 91–108.
Sutherland, N. S., & Mackintosh, N. J. (1971). Mechanisms of animal discrimination learning. New York: Academic Press.
Wagner, A. R. (1969). Stimulus validity and stimulus selection in associative learning. In N. J. Mackintosh & W. K. Honig (Eds.), Fundamental issues in associative learning (pp. 90–122). Halifax, NS: Dalhousie University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This research was supported by NIH Grant R01MH068073 and NSF Grant IBN03-46546. We thank J. Chan, B. Mello, and M. Wan for assistance.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Taylor, K.M., Joseph, V.T., Balsam, P.D. et al. Target-absent controls in blocking experiments with rats. Learning & Behavior 36, 145–148 (2008). https://doi.org/10.3758/LB.36.2.145
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/LB.36.2.145