Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of contributors
- Introduction
- 1 Evolution of attention in learning
- 2 The arguments of associations
- 3 The hybrid modeling approach to conditioning
- 4 Within-compound associations: models and data
- 5 Associative modulation of US processing: implications for understanding of habituation
- 6 Attention, associations, and configurations in conditioning
- 7 Computer simulation of the cerebellum
- 8 The operant/respondent distinction: a computational neural-network analysis
- Index
- References
6 - Attention, associations, and configurations in conditioning
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 10 January 2011
Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of contributors
- Introduction
- 1 Evolution of attention in learning
- 2 The arguments of associations
- 3 The hybrid modeling approach to conditioning
- 4 Within-compound associations: models and data
- 5 Associative modulation of US processing: implications for understanding of habituation
- 6 Attention, associations, and configurations in conditioning
- 7 Computer simulation of the cerebellum
- 8 The operant/respondent distinction: a computational neural-network analysis
- Index
- References
Summary
Abstract
This chapter describes a number of computational mechanisms (associations, attention, and configuration) that first seemed necessary to explain a small number of conditioning results and then proved able to account for a large part of the extensive body of conditioning data. We first present a neural-network theory (Schmajuk, Lam, & Gray, 1996), which includes attentional and associative mechanisms, and apply it to the description of brain activity in the amygdala, anterior cingulate cortex, dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (PFC) and insula, compound conditioning with different initial associative values, the accelerating effect of the extinction of the conditioned excitor on the conditioning of its corresponding conditioned inhibitor, super latent inhibition, recovery and absence of recovery from blocking, latent inhibition–overshadowing synergism and antagonism, summation tests in the context of extinction, and spontaneous recovery. Then we describe another neural network (Schmajuk & Di Carlo, 1992; Schmajuk, Lamoureux, & Holland, 1998) that includes configural mechanisms, and apply it to the description of response form in occasion setting. Finally, we show how the combination of attentional, associative, and configural mechanisms (Schmajuk & Kutlu, 2010) describes the effect of additivity pretraining and posttraining on blocking in causal learning.
Schmajuk, Lam, and Gray's (1996) attentional–associative model
Schmajuk et al. (1996) and Schmajuk and Larrauri (2006) proposed a neural-network model (SLG model) of classical conditioning. The SLG model shares properties with other associability models, including equations that portray behavior on a moment-to-moment basis (Grossberg, 1975; Wagner, 1981), the attentional control of the formation of CS–US associations (Pearce & Hall, 1980), the competition among CSs to become associated with the US (Rescorla & Wagner, 1972) or other CSs (Schmajuk & Moore, 1988), and the combination of attention and competition (Wagner, 1979).
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Computational Models of Conditioning , pp. 186 - 218Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2010
References
, , & (2005). Outcome additivity and outcome maximality influence cue competition in human causal learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31, 238–249.Google ScholarPubMed
, , & (2006). Reasoning rats: forward blocking in Pavlovian animal conditioning is sensitive to constraints of causal inference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135, 92–102.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, , & (1998). Overshadowing and latent inhibition counteract each other: further support for the comparator hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 24, 335–351.Google ScholarPubMed
, & (1999). Recovery from blocking achieved by extinguishing the blocking CS. Animal Learning and Behavior, 27, 63–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
& (1983). Contextual control of the extinction of conditioned fear: tests for the associative value of the context. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 9, 248–265.Google ScholarPubMed
& (1989). Slow reacquisition following extinction: context, encoding, and retrieval mechanisms. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 15, 43–53.Google Scholar
, & (2003). Temporally massed CS presentations generate more fear extinction than spaced presentations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 29, 323–333.Google ScholarPubMed
(1962). Some properties of conditioned inhibition. Acta Biologiae Experimentalis, 22, 5–13.Google ScholarPubMed
(2001). A Turing test for computational and associative theories of learning. Current Directions in Psychological Sciences, 10, 132–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
& (2001). The amygdala: vigilance and emotion. Molecular Psychiatry, 6, 13–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
& (2000). Super-latent inhibition with delayed conditioned taste aversion testing. Animal Learning and Behavior, 28, 389–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
& (2002). An empirical analysis of the super-latent inhibition effect. Animal Learning and Behavior, 30, 112–120.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, & (2000). Prefontal cortical contributions to working memory: evidence from event-related fMRI studies. Experimental Brain Research, 133, 3–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
& (2009). Interpreting patterns of brain activation in human fear conditioning with an attentional-associative learning model. Behavioral Neuroscience, 123, 851–855.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, & (2007). Impact of continuous versus intermittent CS–UCS pairing on human brain activation during Pavlovian fear conditioning. Behavioral Neuroscience, 121, 635–642.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
(1973). Unit activity in prefrontal cortex during delayed-response performance: neuronal correlates of transient memory. Journal of Neurophysiology, 36, 61–78.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
& (1993). Selective hippocampus lesions abolish contextual specificity of latent inhibition and conditioning. Behavioral Neuroscience, 107, 23–33.Google Scholar
(1975). A neural model of attention, reinforcement, and discrimination learning. International Review of Neurobiology, 18, 263–327.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
& (1987). Differential effects of a retention interval on latent inhibition and the habituation of an orienting response. Animal Learning and Behavior, 15, 76–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1989). Occasion setting with simultaneous compounds in rats. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 15, 183–193.Google Scholar
(1999). Overshadowing and blocking as acquisition deficits: no recovery after extinction of overshadowing or blocking cues. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 52B, 307–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
& (1989). Attenuation of latent inhibition after compound preexposure: associative and perceptual explanations. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology B: Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 41, 355–368.Google Scholar
, & (1999). Distractor effect on latent inhibition of conditioned flavor aversion in rats. Japanese Psychological Research, 41, 229–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1973). Effect of number of trials, interstimulus interval, and dishabituation on subsequent conditioning in a CER paradigm. Animal Learning and Behavior, 1, 273–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
& (2008). Attentional, associative, and configural mechanisms of extinction. Psychological Review, 115, 640–676.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
(2004). The role of associative history in models of associative learning: a selective review and a hybrid model. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 57B, 193–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , , & (2003). Forward and backward blocking of causal judgment is enhanced by additivity of effect magnitude. Memory and Cognition, 31, 133–42.Google ScholarPubMed
& (1985). Inhibition as a “slave” process: deactivation of conditioned inhibition through extinction of conditioned excitation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 11, 71–94.Google ScholarPubMed
(1975). A theory of attention: variations in the associability of stimuli with reinforcement. Psychological Review, 82, 276–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
& (1971). Blocking as a function of novelty of CS and predictability of UCS. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 23, 359–366.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
& (2006). Recent fear is resistant to extinction. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 103, 18020–18025.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
& (1985). Conditioning context as an associative baseline: implications for response generation and the nature of conditioned inhibition. In and , eds., Information Processing in Animals: Conditioned Inhibition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 51–88.Google Scholar
, & (2006). Priming and trial spacing in extinction: effects on extinction performance, spontaneous recovery, and reinstatement in appetitive conditioning. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59, 809–829.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
& (2008). Further evidence for the summation of latent inhibition and overshadowing in rats' conditioned taste aversion. Learning and Motivation, 39, 221–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2005). Summation of latent inhibition and overshadowing in a generalized bait shyness paradigm of rats. Behavioural Processes, 69, 369–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, & (1999). Summation of overshadowing and latent inhibition in rats' conditioned taste aversion: scapegoat technique works for familiar meals. Appetite, 33, 299–307.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
& (1980). A model for Pavlovian conditioning: variations in the effectiveness of conditioned but not unconditioned stimuli. Psychological Review, 87, 332–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
& (2005). Contributions of the amygdala to emotion processing: from animal models to human behavior. Neuron, 48, 175–187.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
(2000). Associative changes in excitors and inhibitors differ when they are conditioned in compound. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 26, 428–438.Google ScholarPubMed
(2001). Unequal associative changes when excitors and neural stimuli are conditioned in compound. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology B: Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 54B, 53–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2002). Effect of following an excitatory–inhibitory compound with an intermediate reinforcer. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 28, 163–174.Google ScholarPubMed
(2004). Spontaneous recovery varies inversely with the training–extinction interval. Learning and Behavior, 32, 401–408.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
& (1977). Associations in Pavlovian conditioned inhibition. Learning and Motivation, 8, 429–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
& (1972). A theory of Pavlovian conditioning: variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and non-reinforcement. In and , eds., Classical Conditioning ii: Current Research and Theory. New York: Appleton–Century–Crofts, pp. 64–99.Google Scholar
& (1983). The order of presentation of conditioned stimuli during extinction. Animal Learning and Behavior, 11, 229–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1990). Mechanisms underlying spontaneous recovery in autoshaping. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 16, 235–249.Google Scholar
(2010). Mechanisms in Classical Conditioning: A Computational Approach. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
& (1997). Spatial and temporal cognitive mapping: a neural network approach. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 1, 109–114.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
& (1992). Stimulus configuration, classical conditioning, and the hippocampus. Psychological Review, 99, 268–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
& (2009). The computational nature of associative learning. Behavioral Brain Science, 32, 223–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
& (2010). A computational model that provides an associative interpretation of outcome additivity and maximality effects on blocking. In and , eds., Computational Neuroscience for Advancing Artificial Intelligence: Models, Methods and Applications. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.Google Scholar
& (2006). Experimental challenges to theories of classical conditioning: application of an attentional model of storage and retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 32, 1–20.Google ScholarPubMed
& (2008). Associative models describe both causal learning and conditioning. Behavioral Processes, 77, 443–445.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
& (1988). The hippocampus and the classically conditioned nictitating membrane response: a real-time attentional-associative model. Psychobiology, 16, 20–35.Google Scholar
, & (2001). Nucleus accumbens, entorhinal cortex and latent inhibition: a neural network model. Behavioral Brain Research, 118, 123–141.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, & (1996). Latent inhibition: a neural network approach. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 22, 321–349.Google ScholarPubMed
, & (1998). Occasion setting: a neural network approach. Psychological Review, 105(1), 3–32.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
& (2004). Retrospective revaluation effects in the conditioned suppression procedure. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology B: Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 57B, 331–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1985). Protection from extinction: new data and a hypothesis of several varieties of conditioned inhibition. In and , eds., Information Processing in Animals: Conditioned Inhibition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
(1979). Habituation and memory. In and , eds., Mechanisms of Learning and Motivation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
(1981). SOP: a model of automatic memory processing in animal behavior. In and , eds., Information Processing in Animals: Memory Mechanisms. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 5–47.Google Scholar
, & (2004). Interaction of retention interval with CS-preexposure and extinction treatment: symmetry with respect to primacy. Learning and Behavior, 32, 335–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, & (1992). Restoration of the orienting response to a light by a change in its predictive accuracy. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 44B, 17–36.Google Scholar
(2002). Limited attention and cue order consistency affect predictive learning: a test of similarity measures. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28, 484–496.Google ScholarPubMed