Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The differential outcomes procedure can interfere or enhance operant rule learning

  • Papers
  • Published:
Integrative Physiological & Behavioral Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The differential outcomes effect—the enhancement of learning and memory performance by correlating distinct reinforcers with to-be-remembered events (sample stimuli)—has been stated to be one of the most robust phenomena in learning psychology. However, in this paper we demonstrate that the correlation between unique samples and unique reinforcers can either interfere with or enhance learning a spatial matching-rule, dependent on whether these two processes are trained concurrently or sequentially. If the Pavlovian conditioning (unique sample-reward pairings) occurs before the matching rule is learned (sequentially), the conditioned expectations of unique rewards will enhance the acquisition of the spatial matching-rule in rats (the differential outcomes effect will be observed). However, if rats are required to learn the Pavlovian associations and the matching-rule concurrently, they are impaired in acquiring the spatial matching-rule. Thus, employing the differential outcomes procedure can either enhance or detract from learning and remembering the task rule—dependent on the nature of the task and order of training. These data suggest that under some circumstances learning Pavlovian associations can compete with the formation of instrumental behavior.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Baxter, M. G., Parker, A., Lindner, C. C., Izquierdo, A. D., & Murray, E. A. (2000). Control of response selection by reinforcer value requires interaction of amygdala and orbital prefrontal cortex.Journal of Neuroscience, 20, 4311–4319

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, B. L., Hemmes, N. S., & Cabeza de Vaca, S. (1997). Timing of the CS-US interval by pigeons in trace and delay autoshaping.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Comparative & Physiological Psychology, 50B, 40–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlson, J. G., & Wielkiewicz, R. M. (1976). Mediators of the effects of magnitude of reinforcement.Learning & Motivation, 7, 184–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, C. A., Jagielo, J. A., Zentall, T. R., & Hogan, D. E. (1982). Acquired equivalence and distinctiveness in delayed matching to sample by pigeons: Mediation by reinforcer-specific expectancies.Journal of Experimental Psychology, Animal Behavioral Processes, 8, 244–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fedorchak, P. M., & Bolles, R. C. (1986). Differential outcomes effects using biologically neutral outcomes.Journal of Experimentl Psychology, Animal Behavioral Processes, 12, 125–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goeters, S., Blakely, E., & Poling, A. (1992). The differential outcomes effect.The Psychological Record, 42, 389–411.

    Google Scholar 

  • Honig, W. K., Matheson, W. R., & Dodd, P. W. (1984). Outcome expectancies as mediators for discriminative responding.Canadian Journal of Psychology, 38, 196–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, J. J., & Baxter, M. G. (2001). Multiple brain-memory systems: the whole differential outcomes effects not equal the sum of its parts.Trends in Neurosciences, 24, 324–330.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kruse, J. M., Overmier, J. B., Konz, W. A., & Ronke, E. (1983). Pavlovian CS effects upon instrumental choice behavior are reinforcer specific.Learning and Motivation, 14, 165–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • LeDoux, J. E. (2000). Emotion circuits in the brain.Annual Review of Neuroscience, 23, 155–184.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Linwick, D., Overmier, J. B., Peterson, G. B., & Mertens, M. (1988). Interaction of memories and expectancies as mediators of choice behavior.American Journal of Psychology, 101, 313–334.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, R. J., & White, N. M. (1993). A triple dissociation of memory systems: hippocampus, amygdala, and dorsal striatum.Behavioral Neuroscience, 107, 3–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, R. J., & White, N. M. (1995a). Hippocampal and nonhippocampal contributions to place learning in rats.Behavioral Neuroscience 109, 579–593.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, R. J., & White, N. M. (1995b). Information acquired by the hippocampus interferes with acquisition of the amygdala-based conditioned-cue preference in the rat.Hippocampus, 5, 189–197.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mowrer, O. H. (1956). Two-factor learning theory reconsidered, with special reference to secondary reinforcement and the concept of habit.Psychological Review, 63, 114–128.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Odling-Smee, F. J. (1975). Background stimuli and the interstimulus interval during Pavlovian conditioning.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 27, 387–392.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Overmier, J. B. & Lawry, J. A. (1979). Pavlovian conditioning and the mediation of behavior.The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 13, 1–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Overmier, J. B., Savage, L. M., & Sweeney, W. A. (1999). Behavioral and pharmacological analyses of memory: New behavioral options for remediation. In M. Haug, & R. E. Whalen (Eds.),Animal models of human emotion and cognition (pp. 231–245). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Packard, M. G. (2001). On the neurobiology of multiple memory systems: Tolman vs. Hull: systems interactions and the emotion-memory link.Cognitive Processing, 2, 3–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, G. B. (1984). How expectancies guide behavior. In H. L. Roitblat, T. G. Bever, & H. S. Terrace (Eds.),Animal Cognition (pp. 135–148). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, G. B., Linwick, D., & Overmier, J. B. (1987). On the comparative efficacy of memories and expectancies as cues for choice behavior in pigeons.Learning and Motivation, 18, 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, G. B., & Trapold, M. A. (1980). Effects of altering outcome expectancies on pigeons' delayed conditional discrimination performance.Learning and Motivation, 11, 267–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pratt, W. E., & Mizumori, S. J. (1998). Characteristics of basolateral amygdala neuronal firing on a spatial memory task involving differential reward.Behavioral Neuroscience, 112, 554–570.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Santi, A., & Roberts, W. A. (1985). Prospective representation: The effects of varied mapping of sample stimuli to comparison stimuli and differential trial outcomes on pigeons' working memory.Animal Learning & Behavior, 13, 103–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Savage, L. (2001). In search of the neurobiological correlates of the differential outcomes effect.Integrative Physiological and Behavioral Science, 36, 182–195.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Savage, L. M., & Langlais, P. J. (1995). Differential outcomes attenuate memory impairments on matching-to-position following pyrithiamine-induced thiamine deficiency in rats.Psychobiology, 23, 153–160.

    Google Scholar 

  • Savage, L. M., & Parsons, J. (1997). The effects of delay interval, intertrial interval, amnestic drugs, and differential outcomes on matching-to-position in rats.Psychobiology, 25, 303–312.

    Google Scholar 

  • Savage, L. M., Pitkin, S. R., & Careri, J. M. (1999). Memory enhancement in aged rats: The differential outcomes effect.Developmental Psychobiology, 35, 318–327.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Savage, L. M., Pitkin, S. R., & Knitowski, K. M. (1999). Rats exposed to acute pyrithiamine-induced thiamine deficiency are more sensitive to the amnestic effects of scopolamine and MK-801: Examination of working memory, response selection and reinforcement contingencies.Behavioural Brain Research, 104, 13–26.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Savage, L. M., Stanchfield, M., & Overmier, J. B. (1994). The Effect of Scopolamine, Diazepam and Lorazepam on Working Memory in Pigeons: An Analysis of Reinforcement Procedures and Sample Problem Type.Pharmacology, Biochemistry & Behavior, 48, 183–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schoenbaum, G., Chiba, A. A., & Gallagher, M. (1998). Orbitofrontal cortex and basolateral amygdala encode expected outcomes during learning.Nature Neuroscience, 1, 155–159.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sherburne, L. M., & Zentall, T. R. (1998). The differential outcomes effect in pigeons is not reduced by eliminating response-outcome associations: Support for a two-processes account.Animal Learning & Behavior, 26, 378–387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trapold, M. A. (1970). Are expectancies based upon different positive reinforcing events discriminably different?Learning and Motivation, 1, 129–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trapold, M. A., & Overmier, J. B. (1972) The second learning process in instrumental learning. In A. H. Black and W. F. Prokasy (Ed.)Classical Conditioning II: Current Theory and Research. New York: Appleton-Century-Crafts.

    Google Scholar 

  • Urcuioli, P. J. (1990a). Differential outcomes and many-to-one matching: Effects of correlation with correct choice.Animal Learning & Behavior, 18, 410–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Urcuioli, P. J. (1990b). Some relationships between outcome expectancies and sample stimuli in pigeons' delayed matching.Animal Learning & Behavior, 18, 302–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Urcuioli, P. J. (1991). Retardation and facilitation of matching acquisition by differential outcomes.Animal Learning & Behavior, 19, 29–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Urcuioli, P. J., & DeMarse, T. B. (1996). Associative processes in differential outcome discriminations.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 22, 192–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Behavioral Neuroscience Program Department of Psychology, SUNY-Binghamton, 13905, Binghamton, NY

    Raddy Ramos & Lisa M. Savage

Authors
  1. Raddy Ramos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lisa M. Savage
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lisa M. Savage.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ramos, R., Savage, L.M. The differential outcomes procedure can interfere or enhance operant rule learning. Integrative Physiological & Behavioral Science 38, 17–35 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02734258

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02734258

Keywords

Search

Navigation