7/30/2019 Classical Conditioning II

1/35

Classical Conditioning II

7/30/2019 Classical Conditioning II

2/35

What are the necessary

conditions for classical

conditioning?

7/30/2019 Classical Conditioning II

3/35

CS USDelay

CS USTrace

CS USExplicitly

Unpaired CSminutes

Weakerconditionedrespon

ding

7/30/2019 Classical Conditioning II

4/35

Is contiguity necessary?

7/30/2019 Classical Conditioning II

5/35

Conditioned taste aversion

methodology

Distinctive flavor

LiCl injection

7/30/2019 Classical Conditioning II

6/35

Choice Test

vs

?

7/30/2019 Classical Conditioning II

7/35

Is contiguity sufficient?

7/30/2019 Classical Conditioning II

8/35

CS-US belongingness

From Garcia & Koelling, 1966

7/30/2019 Classical Conditioning II

9/35

Conclusion thus far:

Forward pairings (contiguity) neither

necessary nor sufficient.

Something more is required

Belongingness

Kamin: Surprise

7/30/2019 Classical Conditioning II

10/35

Leon Kamin: Blocking

Group Phase 1 Phase 2 Test

Block AUS AXUS X?

Control BUS AXUS X?

US has to be surprising to the animal for learning

of the CS-US association to occur.

Because A already predicts the US in the Blockinggroup, the US is not surprising during Phase 2

trials.

7/30/2019 Classical Conditioning II

11/35

Conclusion thus far:

Forward pairings (contiguity) neither

necessary nor sufficient.

Something more is required

Belongingness

Kamin: Surprise

Relative salience

7/30/2019 Classical Conditioning II

12/35

Salience effects

Overshadowing in compound conditioning,

the more salient CS wins

Group Treatment Test x

Overshadow Ax+ cr

Control x+ CR

7/30/2019 Classical Conditioning II

13/35

Conclusion thus far:

Forward pairings (contiguity) neithernecessary nor sufficient.

Something more is required

Belongingness

Kamin: SurpriseContingency

Relative salience

Contingency

7/30/2019 Classical Conditioning II

14/35

Rescorlas contingency experiment

Correlated

Group

CS

US

Uncorrelated

Group

CS

US

Rate of US Occurrence: 0.1US/sec during CS; 0US/sec outside of CS

Rate of US Occurrence: 0.1US/sec during CS; 0.1US/sec outside of CS

7/30/2019 Classical Conditioning II

15/35

Rescorlas contingency experiment

Correlated

Group

CS

US

Uncorrelated

Group

CS

US

Rate of US Occurrence: 0.1US/sec during CS; 0US/sec outside of CS

Rate of US Occurrence: 0.1US/sec during CS; 0.1US/sec outside of CS

7/30/2019 Classical Conditioning II

16/35

Rescorlas contingency experiment

Correlated

Group

CS

US

Uncorrelated

Group

P (US|CS) = 0.5 P(US|noCS) = 0.5

CS

US

7/30/2019 Classical Conditioning II

17/35

P(US | CS) P(US | ~CS))

7/30/2019 Classical Conditioning II

18/35

CR

P(US | CS) = .4 for all groups

P(US | noCS)

.40 .1 .2

Results of Rescorlas (1968) Contingency Experiment

7/30/2019 Classical Conditioning II

19/35

Its a little like

Animals are scientists, trying to make causal

predictions.

trying to determine whether the US is

contingenton the CS

7/30/2019 Classical Conditioning II

20/35

Other Contingency Phenomena

US preexposure effect: Presenting the USrepeatedly prior to CS-US trials retards

acquisition.

CS preexposure effect: Presenting the CSrepeatedly prior to CS-US trials retards

acquisition. (a.k.a. Latent Inhibition)

7/30/2019 Classical Conditioning II

21/35

US and CS preexposure designs

US preexposureGroup Phase 1 Phase 2 Test CS

Experimental US CSUS cr

Control ---- CSUS CR

CS preexposureGroup Phase 1 Phase 2 Test CS

Experimental CS- CSUS cr

Control ---- CSUS CR

7/30/2019 Classical Conditioning II

22/35

Factors That Affect ConditioningContiguity: The closer two stimuli are in space

and time, the stronger can be the associationbetween them.

Belongingness: The fit between CS and US

Contingency: Information value. The higher

the correlation between two stimuli, the stronger

the conditioned response.

Salience: More intense or noticeable stimuli

condition more rapidly.

7/30/2019 Classical Conditioning II

23/35

Other conditioning phenomena

discovered by Pavlov

Conditioned inhibition: A stimulus predicts the absence of the

US.

Second-order conditioning: Pairing a neutral stimulus with a

CS confers associative strength upon the neutral stimulus

7/30/2019 Classical Conditioning II

24/35

Conditioned Inhibition

A US A US

A USA US

A US A USA

A

X

A

X

X

7/30/2019 Classical Conditioning II

25/35

http://www.english.language.ru/lessons/lesson_7/outoforder.gifhttp://www.english.language.ru/lessons/lesson_7/outoforder.gif

7/30/2019 Classical Conditioning II

26/35

Second-Order Conditioning

A+/AX- training. Look familiar?

However, number of AX- trials is critical

- Few AX- trials leads to SOC

- Many AX- trials leads to conditioned inhibition

also, SOC typically produced in two phases.

- A+ training followed by AX+ training.

7/30/2019 Classical Conditioning II

27/35

Design of Conditioned Inhibition

Phase 1 Test XA+/AX- CI

(Many AX- trials -- tens to hundreds)

Design of Second-Order Conditioning

Phase 1 Phase 2 Test XA+ AX- CR

(Few AX- trials -- typically not more than 8-10)

7/30/2019 Classical Conditioning II

28/35

Classical Conditioning Simulator

http://www.uwm.edu/~johnchay/cc.htmhttp://www.uwm.edu/~johnchay/cc.htmhttp://www.uwm.edu/~johnchay/cc.htm

7/30/2019 Classical Conditioning II

29/35

VCS = change in associative strength of CS

VCS = associative strength of CS

= Asymptote of learning

Learning rate parameters

= CS salience (0-1; 0 = no CS)

= US salience (0-1; 0 = no US)

VCS = (-VSUM)

The Rescorla-Wagner Model (1972)

7/30/2019 Classical Conditioning II

30/35

R-W and Blocking

VCS = (-VSUM)

Blocking groupVX = ( -VA+X)

VX = 1(1[1+0]) = 0

Acq groupVX = ( -VA+X)

VX = 1(1 [0+0]) = 0

Group Ph. 1 Ph. 2 VA

Block A+ AX+ 1 1

Acq B+ AX+ 1 0

Phase 2

7/30/2019 Classical Conditioning II

31/35

Rescorla-Wagner Spreadsheet

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/psychology/courses/S1440/RW.xlshttp://www.columbia.edu/cu/psychology/courses/S1440/RW.xlshttp://www.columbia.edu/cu/psychology/courses/S1440/RW.xlshttp://www.columbia.edu/cu/psychology/courses/S1440/RW.xls

7/30/2019 Classical Conditioning II

32/35

R-W model accounts for:

Blocking (Kamin)

Overshadowing (Pavlov)Ax+, A-US association develops faster than X-US

CSs have unequal learning rate parameters.

Conditioned inhibition (Pavlov)

A+/AX-, (-VA+X) = (0-[1+0]) = -1

X develops negative associative strength!

7/30/2019 Classical Conditioning II

33/35

Overexpectation Effect

Group Ph. 1 Ph. 2 Test X

Experimental A+/X+ AX+ cr

Control A+/X+ --- CR

7/30/2019 Classical Conditioning II

34/35

What is learned in CC?

CS

US

UR

Clark Hull (S-R theory) Pavlov (S-S theory)

CS

US

UR

7/30/2019 Classical Conditioning II

35/35

TestDevaluation Experiment

Holland & Straub (1979)

Train Devaluation Test

TonePellet PelletRotation ToneCR

Pellet | Rotation ToneCR