Journal of Experimental Psychology-Animal Learning and Cognition最新文献

Blocking (i.e., reduced responding to cue X following YX-outcome pairings in Phase 2 as a consequence of cue Y having been paired with the outcome in Phase 1) is one of the signature phenomena in Pavlovian conditioning. Its discovery promoted the development of multiple associative models, most of which viewed blocking as an instance of pure cue competition (i.e., a decrease in responding attributable to training two conditioned stimuli in compound). Two experiments are reported in which rats were examined in a fear conditioning paradigm (i.e., lick suppression), and context dependency of retrieval at test was used as an index of associative cue interference (i.e., a decrease in responding to a target cue as a result of training a second cue with the same outcome but without concurrent presentation of the two cues). Specifically, we observed renewal of forward-blocking which parallels renewal of proactive interference, and renewal of backward-blocking which parallels renewal of retroactive interference. Thus, both backward-blocking (Experiment 1, embedded in a sensory preconditioning design) and forward-blocking (Experiment 2, conducted in first-order conditioning) appear to be influenced by retroactive and proactive interference, respectively, as well as cue competition. Consequently, blocking, long regarded as a benchmark example of pure cue competition, is sometimes a hybrid of cue competition and associative interference. Finally, the Discussion considers whether stimulus competition and associative interference are two independent phenomena or products of a single underlying process. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Three experiments (a, b, c) combined to provide a well-powered examination of the effects of stimulus pre-exposure and conditioning on visual attention using an eye tracker and a space-shooter video game where a colored flashing light predicted an attacking spaceship. In each, group "control" received no pre-exposure to the light, group "same" received pre-exposure in the same context as conditioning, and group "different" received pre-exposure in a different context. Experiments differed in visual details regarding the game (1a vs. 1b and 1c) or minor details in the setup of the eye tracker (1a and 1b vs. 1c). Overall, pre-exposure retarded acquisition of keyboard responding. That effect was enhanced, rather than attenuated, by a context change. Separating participants by sign and goal trackers showed the context change enhanced the pre-exposure effect in goal trackers and reduced it in sign trackers. Visual attention to the light declined during pre-exposure and did not recover with either conditioning or a context switch. Visual attention to the light decreased during conditioning. Visual goal tracking toward where the spaceship would appear was also retarded with pre-exposure. Unlike the keyboard responding, a context change led to more normal goal-tracking acquisition. Results are discussed in terms of theories of attention and the potential effects of demand characteristics on the task. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

To study comparative attentional allocation strategies, pigeons and humans were tested using simultaneously available discrimination tasks. Given visual search displays containing 32 items from two orthogonal dimensions, participants were reinforced for selecting the eight brightest (or darkest) of 16 brightness items and the eight most vertical (or horizontal) of 16 orientation items. Consistent with a sequential dimensional strategy, humans preferentially chose items from one dimension before switching to the other to complete the search. In contrast, the pigeons did not preferentially stay within one dimension over consecutive choices. Instead, they chose the items most likely to yield reward based on item discriminability. Computational models that incorporated a "dimensional staying" factor accounted best for the human data, while simulations using only discriminability reproduced the pigeons' data. These results suggest that humans are sensitive to the benefits of attentional staying and the costs of switching between dimensional tasks, while there was no evidence that these factors influenced the pigeons' choice behavior. These findings suggest fundamental differences in how pigeons and humans allocate attention in complex choice situations. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Learning of cue-outcome relationships in associative learning experiments is often assessed by presenting cues without feedback about the outcome and informing participants to expect no outcomes to occur. The rationale is that this "no-feedback" testing procedure prevents new learning during testing that might contaminate the later test trials. We tested this assumption in 4 predictive learning experiments where participants were tasked with learning which foods (cues) were causing allergic reactions (the outcome) in a fictitious patient. We found that withholding feedback in a block of trials had no effect on causal ratings (Experiments 1 and 2), but it led to regression toward intermediate ratings when the missing feedback was embedded in the causal scenario and information about the outcome replaced by a "?" (Experiment 3). A factorial experiment manipulating cover story and feedback revealed that the regression-to-baseline effect was primarily driven by presentation of the "?" feedback (Experiment 4). We conclude that the procedure of testing without feedback, used widely in studies of human cognition, is an appropriate way of assessing learning, as long as the missing data are attributed to the experimenter and the absence of feedback is not highlighted in a way that induces uncertainty. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).