The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. B, Comparative and physiological psychology最新文献

When caffeine consumers repeatedly experience a novel flavoured drink containing caffeine, the rated pleasantness of the drink flavour increases progressively. These results could be interpreted in terms of the flavour acting as a Pavlovian conditioned stimulus (CS) predicting the consequences of caffeine ingestion. However, all studies of this phenomenon to date have used between-subjects designs, and one criticism of this is that changes in pleasantness might have arisen from nonspecific effects. A more rigorous test is to examine changes in pleasantness for two drinks, a CS+ flavour paired with caffeine and CS- paired with placebo. Accordingly, 20 moderate caffeine consumers consumed both CS+ and CS- drinks in counterbalanced order over eight conditioning trials at breakfast, with hedonic and sensory characteristics evaluated on each trial. As predicted, the rated pleasantness of the CS+ drink increased whereas pleasantness of the CS- drink did not change. Despite this, participants did not have an overall preference for the CS+ flavour posttraining. However, both those who chose the CS+ and those who chose the CS- at the end showed the same direction and rate of change in pleasantness for the two drinks during training, but spurious differences in baseline preference obscured this effect in terms of an overall change in preference. Overall these data suggest that changes in pleasantness of drinks paired with caffeine delivery are best explained in terms of Pavlovian, associations between drink flavour and the postingestive effects of caffeine.

In two experiments, rats swam to a submerged platform in one corner of a rectangular or kite-shaped array created by four identical landmarks attached to the walls of a circular pool. After training in the rectangular array, rats expressed a preference for the corner in the kite-shaped array that was geometrically equivalent to where the platform was located previously. After training in either array, the removal of two landmarks from the rectangular array, or the landmark at the apex of the kite-shaped array, did not affect the control over searching exerted by the remaining landmarks. The results imply that rats use local rather than global spatial representations when searching for a hidden goal with reference to an array of landmarks.

Informing participants in a causal judgement task that outcomes are additive can increase blocking effects (Experiment 1). Outcome additivity information emphasizes the fact that the outcome following a compound is the sum of the effects of its elements. We suggest that the effect of providing outcome additivity information is to encourage elemental processing and thereby enhance blocking. Experiment 2 showed that blocking could be enhanced by factors encouraging elemental processing, and Experiment 3 demonstrated that blocking was reduced by manipulating the visual presentation of cues to encourage configural processing. While these experiments do not rule out the role of inference in causal judgement tasks, the results are most parsimoniously explained by associative accounts that allow flexibility in the encoding of compound cues.

Three experiments with foraging honeybees were designed to study the effect of experience with A on responding to B after AB+ training. In the first experiment, responding to B was the same whether the AB+ training was preceded or followed by A+ training. In the second experiment, responding to B after AB+ training was less in animals that also had A+ training than in control animals that were equally often reinforced in the absence of A; whether the A+ training preceded, was concurrent with, or followed the AB+ training made no difference. In the third experiment, responding to B after AB+ training was less when the AB+ training was followed by A+C- training than when it was followed by C+/A- training. These results, like those of some recent vertebrate experiments, take us beyond the traditional explanation of blocking in terms of impaired conditioning of B on AB+ trials and support the suggestion that the mechanism, still poorly understood, may nevertheless be a relatively simple one.

In four experiments using the conditioned suppression procedure, rats received initial reinforced training with two compound stimuli, AX and BY, each compound consisting of one auditory and one visual element. After a second phase of training consisting of nonreinforced presentations of A, the suppression governed by X and Y was tested. In Experiment 1 X evoked slightly less suppression than Y (a mediated extinction effect). This outcome was obtained when the auditory cues served as X and Y(Experiment 1a), when the visual cues served as X and Y(Experiment 1b), and when the number of nonreinforced presentations of A was increased (Experiment 1c) from 18 to 216. In Experiment 2, however, in which the initial training was given with serial compounds (i.e., A --> X and B --> Y) X evoked more suppression than Y (a recovery-from-overshadowing effect). It was argued that extinction of A engages two learning processes, one increasing the effective associative strength of its associate (X) and one reducing it, and that the balance between these two depends on the specific conditions of training.

Two experiments required volunteers to learn which of various "planes" caused high levels of pollution. Novel test items were then rated as causes of pollution. Items created by adding novel features were rated at the same level as that of the original training items but items created by removing features received reduced ratings. This asymmetry of generalization decrement was not predicted by a well-known configural model of stimulus representation (Pearce, 1987, 1994) but was predicted by a recently proposed model of stimulus representation, the replaced-elements model (Brandon, Vogel, & Wagner, 2000).

In two experiments rats were preexposed to neutral stimuli. Both experiments used a between-subjects design in which a paired group was preexposed to intermixed presentations of A --> Band AX, and an unpaired control group was preexposed to intermixed presentations of A, B, and AX. After the conditioning of B, in Experiment 1, conditioned responding to X was acquired more slowly in the paired than in the unpaired group. Furthermore, in Experiment 2, X reduced conditioned responding to a separately trained excitor in a summation test but only in the paired group. Together, these results provide evidence of an inhibitory form of sensory preconditioning.

In two experiments hungry rats were given access to running wheels. When given the novel flavour, almond, prior to novel access to the wheels, a conditioned aversion to almond was revealed by a subsequent two-bottle test. No such aversion was found in rats with previous experience of wheel running, whether this prior running occurred in the absence of any novel flavour, as in Experiment 1, or following access to saccharin, as in Experiment 2. These results suggest that the failure of rats with prior experience of the running wheels to develop a flavour aversion (unconditioned stimulus, US, preexposure effect) is unlikely to be due to associative blocking. Instead it seems that increasing exposure to a wheel produces habituation of its nausea-inducing properties.

In three experiments, humans received preexposure to two compound flavours (AX and BX: saline-lemon and sucrose-lemon) that were presented either in an intermixed (e.g., AX, BX,...BX, AX,...) or a blocked (e.g., AX, AX,...BX, BX...) fashion. Subsequently, AX was paired with an unpleasant bitter taste, and the discriminability of AX and BX was assessed using the accuracy of same/different judgements and by the extent to which any learned dislike of AX generalized to BX. When participants received feedback about the accuracy of their same/different judgements during preexposure those given intermixed preexposure were more accurate in making these judgements during the test than those given blocked preexposure (Experiments 1 and 2A), however, there was no evidence of any learned dislike in these experiments. In Experiment 2B, in which participants did not receive feedback about the accuracy of their judgements, there was no effect of the preexposure regime on same/different judgements, but there was a learned dislike of AX, and this generalized less to BX in participants given intermixed than in those given blocked preexposure. The beneficial effects of intermixed preexposure are consistent with results from other species (chicks and rats), but the differences created by the presence or absence of feedback place constraints on the analysis of these effects.