Literature DB >> 18954232

Solving XOR.

C Grand1, R C Honey.   

Abstract

Three experiments examined the way in which exclusive-or (XOR) problems are solved by rats. All rats first received food-rewarded positive and negative patterning problems with two stimulus sets: either A+, B+, AB- and C-, D-, CD+, or A-, B-, AB + and C+, D +, and CD-. Subsequently, rats received revaluation trials in which A was paired with shock and C was not, prior to generalization test trials with B, D, AB, and CD (Experiments 1 & 2); or received A-->shock trials prior to tests with B and CD (Experiment 3). There was greater generalized fear to B than to either D (Experiments 1 & 2) or AB (Experiment 2) and CD (Experiments 2 & 3). These results are inconsistent with configural, connectionist models, but are consistent with an alternative connectionist model that can represent the logical structure of XOR problems. (c) 2008 APA, all rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18954232     DOI: 10.1037/0097-7403.34.4.486

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process        ISSN: 0097-7403


  7 in total

1.  Dynamic afferent synapses to decision-making networks improve performance in tasks requiring stimulus associations and discriminations.

Authors:  Mark A Bourjaily; Paul Miller
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2012-03-28       Impact factor: 2.714

2.  Rats are sensitive to ambiguity.

Authors:  Cynthia D Fast; Aaron P Blaisdell
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2011-12

Review 3.  On the nature of CS and US representations in Pavlovian learning.

Authors:  Andrew R Delamater
Journal:  Learn Behav       Date:  2012-03       Impact factor: 1.986

4.  Differential outcome effects in pavlovian biconditional and ambiguous occasion setting tasks.

Authors:  Andrew R Delamater; Alexander Kranjec; Matthew I Fein
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process       Date:  2010-10

5.  Feature- versus rule-based generalization in rats, pigeons and humans.

Authors:  Elisa Maes; Guido De Filippo; Angus B Inkster; Stephen E G Lea; Jan De Houwer; Rudi D'Hooge; Tom Beckers; Andy J Wills
Journal:  Anim Cogn       Date:  2015-07-19       Impact factor: 3.084

Review 6.  Accounting for individual differences in human associative learning.

Authors:  Nicola C Byrom
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2013-09-04

7.  Sampling capacity underlies individual differences in human associative learning.

Authors:  Nicola C Byrom; Robin A Murphy
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Anim Learn Cogn       Date:  2014-04       Impact factor: 2.478

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.