Classical conditioning mechanisms can differentiate between seeing and doing in rats

Munir Gunes Kutlu, Nestor A. Schmajuk

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

7 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

We show that the attentional-associative SLG model of classical conditioning, based on the 1996 research of Schmajuk, Lam, and Gray, correctly describes experimental results regarded as evidence of causal learning in rats: (a) interventions attenuate responding following common-cause training but do not interfere on subsequent responding during observation, and (b) interventions do not affect responding after direct-cause training or (c) causal-chain training. According to the model, responding to the weakly attended test stimulus is strongly inhibited by the intervention in the common-cause case. Instead, in the direct-cause and causal-chain cases, the strongly attended test stimulus becomes inhibitory, thereby overshadowing the inhibitory effect of interventions. Most importantly, the model predicted that with relatively few test trials (a) the 2008 results of Experiment 3 by Leising, Wong, Waldmann, and Blaisdell should be similar to those of Dwyer, Starns, and Honey's 2009 Experiment 1, showing that interventions equally affect responding after common-cause and direct-cause training; and (b) the 2006 results of Experiment 2a by Blaisdell, Sawa, Leising, and Waldmann should be similar to those of Dwyer, Starns, and Honey's 2009 Experiment 2, showing that interventions equally affect responding after common-cause and causal-chain training. When those data were made available to us, we confirmed those predictions. In agreement with the SLG associative model, but not with causal model theory, this evidence supports the notion that the attenuation of responding by interventions only following common-cause training is the consequence of well-known learning processes-latent inhibition, sensory preconditioning, conditioned inhibition, protection from extinction, and overshadowing.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)84-101
Number of pages18
JournalJournal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes
Volume38
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 1 2012

Fingerprint

Classical Conditioning
Honey
conditioning
Learning
rats
honey
Observation
learning
experiment
Research
testing
extinction
Inhibition (Psychology)
classical conditioning
prediction
Psychological Extinction
test

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics
  • Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

Cite this

@article{3db408a6e86f4b42a828b0a362bfe998,
title = "Classical conditioning mechanisms can differentiate between seeing and doing in rats",
abstract = "We show that the attentional-associative SLG model of classical conditioning, based on the 1996 research of Schmajuk, Lam, and Gray, correctly describes experimental results regarded as evidence of causal learning in rats: (a) interventions attenuate responding following common-cause training but do not interfere on subsequent responding during observation, and (b) interventions do not affect responding after direct-cause training or (c) causal-chain training. According to the model, responding to the weakly attended test stimulus is strongly inhibited by the intervention in the common-cause case. Instead, in the direct-cause and causal-chain cases, the strongly attended test stimulus becomes inhibitory, thereby overshadowing the inhibitory effect of interventions. Most importantly, the model predicted that with relatively few test trials (a) the 2008 results of Experiment 3 by Leising, Wong, Waldmann, and Blaisdell should be similar to those of Dwyer, Starns, and Honey's 2009 Experiment 1, showing that interventions equally affect responding after common-cause and direct-cause training; and (b) the 2006 results of Experiment 2a by Blaisdell, Sawa, Leising, and Waldmann should be similar to those of Dwyer, Starns, and Honey's 2009 Experiment 2, showing that interventions equally affect responding after common-cause and causal-chain training. When those data were made available to us, we confirmed those predictions. In agreement with the SLG associative model, but not with causal model theory, this evidence supports the notion that the attenuation of responding by interventions only following common-cause training is the consequence of well-known learning processes-latent inhibition, sensory preconditioning, conditioned inhibition, protection from extinction, and overshadowing.",
author = "Kutlu, {Munir Gunes} and Schmajuk, {Nestor A.}",
year = "2012",
month = "12",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1037/a0026221",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "38",
pages = "84--101",
journal = "Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes",
issn = "0097-7403",
publisher = "American Psychological Association Inc.",
number = "1",

}

Classical conditioning mechanisms can differentiate between seeing and doing in rats. / Kutlu, Munir Gunes; Schmajuk, Nestor A.

In: Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, Vol. 38, No. 1, 01.12.2012, p. 84-101.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Classical conditioning mechanisms can differentiate between seeing and doing in rats

AU - Kutlu, Munir Gunes

AU - Schmajuk, Nestor A.

PY - 2012/12/1

Y1 - 2012/12/1

N2 - We show that the attentional-associative SLG model of classical conditioning, based on the 1996 research of Schmajuk, Lam, and Gray, correctly describes experimental results regarded as evidence of causal learning in rats: (a) interventions attenuate responding following common-cause training but do not interfere on subsequent responding during observation, and (b) interventions do not affect responding after direct-cause training or (c) causal-chain training. According to the model, responding to the weakly attended test stimulus is strongly inhibited by the intervention in the common-cause case. Instead, in the direct-cause and causal-chain cases, the strongly attended test stimulus becomes inhibitory, thereby overshadowing the inhibitory effect of interventions. Most importantly, the model predicted that with relatively few test trials (a) the 2008 results of Experiment 3 by Leising, Wong, Waldmann, and Blaisdell should be similar to those of Dwyer, Starns, and Honey's 2009 Experiment 1, showing that interventions equally affect responding after common-cause and direct-cause training; and (b) the 2006 results of Experiment 2a by Blaisdell, Sawa, Leising, and Waldmann should be similar to those of Dwyer, Starns, and Honey's 2009 Experiment 2, showing that interventions equally affect responding after common-cause and causal-chain training. When those data were made available to us, we confirmed those predictions. In agreement with the SLG associative model, but not with causal model theory, this evidence supports the notion that the attenuation of responding by interventions only following common-cause training is the consequence of well-known learning processes-latent inhibition, sensory preconditioning, conditioned inhibition, protection from extinction, and overshadowing.

AB - We show that the attentional-associative SLG model of classical conditioning, based on the 1996 research of Schmajuk, Lam, and Gray, correctly describes experimental results regarded as evidence of causal learning in rats: (a) interventions attenuate responding following common-cause training but do not interfere on subsequent responding during observation, and (b) interventions do not affect responding after direct-cause training or (c) causal-chain training. According to the model, responding to the weakly attended test stimulus is strongly inhibited by the intervention in the common-cause case. Instead, in the direct-cause and causal-chain cases, the strongly attended test stimulus becomes inhibitory, thereby overshadowing the inhibitory effect of interventions. Most importantly, the model predicted that with relatively few test trials (a) the 2008 results of Experiment 3 by Leising, Wong, Waldmann, and Blaisdell should be similar to those of Dwyer, Starns, and Honey's 2009 Experiment 1, showing that interventions equally affect responding after common-cause and direct-cause training; and (b) the 2006 results of Experiment 2a by Blaisdell, Sawa, Leising, and Waldmann should be similar to those of Dwyer, Starns, and Honey's 2009 Experiment 2, showing that interventions equally affect responding after common-cause and causal-chain training. When those data were made available to us, we confirmed those predictions. In agreement with the SLG associative model, but not with causal model theory, this evidence supports the notion that the attenuation of responding by interventions only following common-cause training is the consequence of well-known learning processes-latent inhibition, sensory preconditioning, conditioned inhibition, protection from extinction, and overshadowing.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84861115404&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84861115404&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1037/a0026221

DO - 10.1037/a0026221

M3 - Article

VL - 38

SP - 84

EP - 101

JO - Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes

JF - Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes

SN - 0097-7403

IS - 1

ER -