Literature DB >> 16812810

Blocking, unblocking, and overexpectation in autoshaping with pigeons.

Y Khallad, J Moore.   

Abstract

Three experiments used pigeons in an autoshaping procedure and a single-subject design to examine compound stimulus control in classical conditioning. Experiment 1 examined the blocking effect, and Experiment 2 examined the unblocking effect. In both experiments, response-independent food was first delivered intermittently in the presence of one distinctively colored houselight but not another. Then, conventional autoshaping trials were carried out in the presence of each houselight. In Experiment 1, the keylight readily elicited responding in the presence of the houselight that had been negatively correlated with food, but not in the presence of the houselight that had been positively correlated with food. In Experiment 2, the keylight readily elicited responding in the presence of the houselight positively correlated with food, but only when the amount of food used on the autoshaping trials was either greater or less than that previously delivered in the presence of the houselight. Experiment 3 examined the overexpectation effect. Conventional autoshaping trials were first carried out by presenting each of two keylights individually. Then, additional autoshaping trials were carried out by presenting the two keylights as a compound, with either the same amount of food or a greater amount of food per trial. Finally, the keylights were retested by again presenting them individually. The number of responses per trial elicited by the keylights decreased when the amount of food used in compound trials was the same as that used in individual trials. However, the number of responses per trial remained approximately the same when the amount of food used in compound trials was greater than that used in individual trials. Taken together, the results of the three experiments demonstrate (a) the generality of the blocking, unblocking, and overexpectation effects by virtue of their extension to appetitive unconditioned stimuli; (b) the suitability of pigeons as subjects and autoshaping as a procedure for studying classical conditioning; and (c) the appropriateness of single-subject designs.

Year:  1996        PMID: 16812810      PMCID: PMC1349953          DOI: 10.1901/jeab.1996.65-575

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav        ISSN: 0022-5002            Impact factor:   2.468


  5 in total

1.  Acquisition of the autoshaped key peck as a function of amount of preliminary magazine training.

Authors:  G D Steinhauer; G H Davol; A Lee
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1976-05       Impact factor: 2.468

2.  The effects of changes in the CS-US interval during compound conditioning upon an otherwise blocked element.

Authors:  B G Schreurs; R F Westbrook
Journal:  Q J Exp Psychol B       Date:  1982-02

3.  The Rescorla-Wagner model: losses in associative strength in compound conditioned stimuli.

Authors:  E F Kremer
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process       Date:  1978-01

4.  Evaluation of blocking and conditioned inhibition to a CS signaling a decrease in US intensity.

Authors:  A R Wagner; J E Mazur; N H Donegan; P L Pfautz
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process       Date:  1980-10

5.  A model for Pavlovian learning: variations in the effectiveness of conditioned but not of unconditioned stimuli.

Authors:  J M Pearce; G Hall
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  1980-11       Impact factor: 8.934

  5 in total
  10 in total

1.  Complex dynamic processes in sign tracking with an omission contingency (negative automaintenance).

Authors:  Peter R Killeen
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process       Date:  2003-01

2.  Purkinje cell activity during classical conditioning with different conditional stimuli explains central tenet of Rescorla–Wagner model [corrected].

Authors:  Anders Rasmussen; Riccardo Zucca; Fredrik Johansson; Dan-Anders Jirenhed; Germund Hesslow
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2015-10-26       Impact factor: 11.205

3.  Spontaneous recovery from overexpectation.

Authors:  Robert A Rescorla
Journal:  Learn Behav       Date:  2006-02       Impact factor: 1.986

4.  Renewal after overexpectation.

Authors:  Robert A Rescorla
Journal:  Learn Behav       Date:  2007-02       Impact factor: 1.986

5.  Translations in Stimulus-Stimulus Pairing: Autoshaping of Learner Vocalizations.

Authors:  Stephanie P da Silva; April Michele Williams
Journal:  Perspect Behav Sci       Date:  2019-11-25

6.  The "lunching" effect: pigeons track motion towards food more than motion away from it.

Authors:  Felipe Cabrera; Federico Sanabria; David Shelley; Peter R Killeen
Journal:  Behav Processes       Date:  2009-07-08       Impact factor: 1.777

7.  Spontaneous recovery from overexpectation in an insect.

Authors:  Kanta Terao; Yukihisa Matsumoto; Beatriz Álvarez; Makoto Mizunami
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-06-14       Impact factor: 4.996

8.  Overexpectation: response loss during sustained stimulus compounding in the rabbit nictitating membrane preparation.

Authors:  E James Kehoe; Natasha E White
Journal:  Learn Mem       Date:  2004 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 2.460

9.  Blocking in autoshaped lever-pressing procedures with rats.

Authors:  Peter C Holland; Judith S A Asem; Connor P Galvin; Caitlin Hepps Keeney; Melanie Hsu; Alexandra Miller; Vivian Zhou
Journal:  Learn Behav       Date:  2014-03       Impact factor: 1.986

10.  Sign-tracking is an expectancy-mediated behavior that relies on prediction error mechanisms.

Authors:  Rifka C Derman; Kevin Schneider; Shaina Juarez; Andrew R Delamater
Journal:  Learn Mem       Date:  2018-09-17       Impact factor: 2.460

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.