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

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).

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).

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).

The acquisition of instrumental responding can be supported by primary reinforcers or by conditional (also known as secondary) reinforcers that themselves have an association to a primary reinforcer. While primary reinforcement has been heavily studied for the past century, the associative basis of conditioned reinforcement has received comparatively little experimental examination. Yet conditioned reinforcement has been employed as an important behavioral assay in neuroscience studies, and thus an analysis of its associative basis is called for. We evaluated the extent to which an element from a previously trained compound would facilitate conditioned reinforcement. Three groups of rats received Pavlovian conditioning with a visual-auditory compound cue followed by food. After training, a lever was made available that, when pressed, produced the same trained compound (group compound), only the auditory cue (group element), or a novel auditory cue (group control). The rats in group compound pressed the lever at a higher rate than did rats in either group element or group control, demonstrating a strong conditioned reinforcement effect only in group compound. Interestingly, there was almost no difference in responding between group element and group control. The implications of this generalization decrement in conditioned reinforcement are discussed-particularly as they relate to research in behavioral neuroscience. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Theories of associative learning often propose that learning is proportional to prediction error, or the difference between expected events and those that occur. Spicer et al. (2020) suggested an alternative, that humans might instead selectively attribute surprising outcomes to cues that they are not confident about, to maintain cue-outcome associations about which they are more confident. Spicer et al. reported three predictive learning experiments, the results of which were consistent with their proposal ("theory protection") rather than a prediction error account (Rescorla, 2001). The four experiments reported here further test theory protection against a prediction error account. Experiments 3 and 4 also test the proposals of Holmes et al. (2019), who suggested a function mapping learning to performance that can explain Spicer et al.'s results using a prediction-error framework. In contrast to the previous study, these experiments were based on inhibition rather than excitation. Participants were trained with a set of cues (represented by letters), each of which was followed by the presence or absence of an outcome (represented by + or -). Following this, a cue that previously caused the outcome (A+) was placed in compound with another cue (B) with an ambiguous causal status (e.g., a novel cue in Experiment 1). This compound (AB-) did not cause the outcome. Participants always learned more about B in the second training phase, despite A always having the greater prediction error. In Experiments 3 and 4, a cue with no apparent prediction error was learned about more than a cue with a large prediction error. Experiment 4 tested participants' relative confidence about the causal status of cues A and B prior to the AB- stage, producing findings that are consistent with theory protection and inconsistent with the predictions of Rescorla, and Holmes et al. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).