Chapter 6
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 41

CHAPTER 6 PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 73 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

CHAPTER 6. Pavlovian Conditioning: Storage and Response Output. WHAT IS LEARNED IN CONDITIONING?. Dog receives Pavlovian training trials. E.g., tone CS paired with food US. Dog now salivates to tone. What does dog learn? How is dog changed?. Two Possibilities:.

Download Presentation

CHAPTER 6

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Chapter 6

CHAPTER 6

Pavlovian Conditioning:

Storage and Response Output


What is learned in conditioning

WHAT IS LEARNED IN CONDITIONING?

  • Dog receives Pavlovian training trials.

  • E.g., tone CS paired with food US.

  • Dog now salivates to tone.

  • What does dog learn?

  • How is dog changed?


Two possibilities

Two Possibilities:

  • Dog associates CS with UR: tone with salivation.

  • Dog associates CS with US: tone with food.


S r learning

S-R Learning:

CS

US

UR


S s learning

S-S Learning:

CS

US

UR


Is learning s s or s r

Is Learning S-S or S-R?

  • Evidence supports both S-R and S-S views of conditioning process.

  • We cannot now resolve the issue.

  • But, we can discuss evidence that has accumulated to support each view.


Paradigms to distinguish s s from s r learning

Paradigms to Distinguish S-S from S-R Learning

  • Sensory Preconditioning

  • Second-Order Conditioning

  • US Devaluation


Sensory preconditioning

Sensory Preconditioning

  • Dog receives trials in which buzzer is paired with light.

  • No food USs are presented.

  • After initial training, light is paired with food, which produces salivation.

  • After a number of trials, light comes to elicit anticipatory salivation.

  • Finally, buzzer is sounded.

  • Buzzer alone elicits salivation.


Sensory preconditioning1

Sensory Preconditioning

  • Phenomenon is called sensory preconditioning.

  • Sensory conditioning (between CSs, like buzzer and light) occurs prior to any conditioning of either CS with US.

  • Looks like S-S learning.

  • No salivation response is elicited during pairing of buzzer and light.


Sensory preconditioning2

Sensory Preconditioning

  • Steps in sensory preconditioning:

  • CS2CS1

  • CS1US

  • CS2CR?


Second order conditioning

Second-Order Conditioning

  • Light is paired with food, which produces salivation.

  • After a number of trials, light comes to elicit anticipatory salivation.

  • Dog now receives trials in which buzzer is paired with light.

  • No food USs are presented.

  • Buzzer alone elicits salivation.


Second order conditioning1

Second-Order Conditioning

  • Steps in second-order conditioning:

  • CS1US

  • CS2CS1

  • CS2CR?


Sensory preconditioning vs second order conditioning

Sensory Preconditioning vs Second-Order Conditioning

  • Steps in sensory preconditioning:

  • CS2CS1

  • CS1US

  • CS2CR?

  • Steps in second-order conditioning:

  • CS1US

  • CS2CS1

  • CS2CR?


S r learning special predictions

CS1

UR1

US1

CS2

CR1

CS1

CS1

UR2

US2

S-R Learning: Special Predictions

CS2CR1


S s learning special predictions

CS1

UR1

US1

CS2

CR1

CS1

CS1

UR2

US2

S-S Learning: Special Predictions

CS2CR2


Second order conditioning a special test

Second-Order Conditioning: A Special Test

  • Light is paired with food.

  • After a number of trials, light comes to elicit anticipatory salivation.

  • Dog now receives trials in which buzzer is paired with light.

  • Buzzer alone elicits salivation.

  • Light is finally paired with foot shock, which elicits leg flexion.

  • What does buzzer alone produce?

  • Salivation: S-R learning.


Second order conditioning an autoshaping test

Second-Order Conditioning: An Autoshaping Test

  • If pigeons receive tone-food pairings, then they show no sign of conditioning to tone.

  • Pigeons do not approach and peck at sound source in same way they approach and peck at key light CS paired with food.

  • Yet, if pigeons later receive second-order conditioning trials of key light followed by tone, then they start key pecking.

  • So, tone CS can be used as a US to produce Pavlovian key pecking.


Second order conditioning an autoshaping test1

Second-Order Conditioning: An Autoshaping Test

  • Result indicates that, during tone-food pairings, pigeons do form an association, so that tone evokes a representation of food.

  • When key light is later paired with tone, it is paired with representation of food produced by tone.

  • Conditioned key pecking results, even though key light and food (or pecking) have never themselves been paired: S-S learning.


Us devaluation

US Devaluation

  • CS-US pairings

  • CS?CR

  • US devaluation

  • CS?CR

  • Reduced CRs after US devaluation imply S-S learning.


Us devaluation1

US Devaluation

  • Conditioning involves association between representations of CS and US.

  • Initially, US is represented as potent, so strong conditioned responding occurs.

  • Then, US is devalued and new representation of less potent US is formed.

  • When CS is later presented, it activates this less potent representation.

  • Result is weaker conditioned responding.


Aversive us devaluation

Aversive US Devaluation

  • CS-US (noise) pairings

  • CSfear

  • US devaluation (habituation to noise)

  • CSreduced fear


Appetitive us devaluation

Appetitive US Devaluation

  • CS-US (food) pairings

  • CSsalivation

  • US devaluation (satiation to food)

  • CSreduced salivation


Is learning s s or s r1

Is Learning S-S or S-R?

  • Organisms can learn both types of associations.

  • Processes of association formation are more varied and flexible than Pavlov might have imagined.

  • Conclusion holds for both excitatory and inhibitory conditioning.


Adaptive function of conditioned response

ADAPTIVE FUNCTION OF CONDITIONED RESPONSE

  • What determines kinds of CRs that pairings of CSs and USs will produce?

  • In studies of Pavlovian conditioning, one cannot arbitrarily choose CRs.

  • Pavlov believed CR resembled UR.

  • So, if food produces salivation, then CS too should produce salivation.

  • If shock increases heart rate, then CS too should increase heart rate.


Adaptive function of conditioned response1

ADAPTIVE FUNCTION OF CONDITIONED RESPONSE

  • Later research suggests that CR determination is not so simple.

  • Although CRs sometimes mimic URs, they often do not.

  • Form of CRs can be influenced by many factors.


Adaptive function of conditioned response2

ADAPTIVE FUNCTION OF CONDITIONED RESPONSE

  • In last 20 years, considerable work has been done on nature of Pavlovian CRs.

  • At present, no single, general principle can account for all findings.

  • But, while seeking such a general principle, researchers have discovered many extremely exciting phenomena.


Adaptive function of conditioned response3

ADAPTIVE FUNCTION OF CONDITIONED RESPONSE

  • Phenomena suggest that CRs take a form that serves organism’s needs.

  • CRs help organisms adapt to whatever challenge US poses.

  • Sometimes, it is adaptive for CRs to resemble URs.

  • But, it may be more adaptive for CRs to be different from URs.

  • Indeed, it is sometimes adaptive for CRs to be the opposite of URs.


Adaptive function of conditioned response4

ADAPTIVE FUNCTION OF CONDITIONED RESPONSE

  • Would Pavlovian conditioning have evolved if it did not importantly contribute to organism’s well-being?

  • Probably not.

  • What might that contribution be?

  • It allows organisms to anticipate and respond to upcoming events of importance like food or danger.

  • Pavlov called this “signalization.”


Adaptive function of conditioned response5

ADAPTIVE FUNCTION OF CONDITIONED RESPONSE

  • Whether such anticipation truly helps survival depends on what organism does when Pavlovian CSs occur.

  • If organism learns that a tone reliably precedes shock, but it does nothing with that information, then Pavlovian conditioning would be useless.

  • But, organisms not only learn Pavlovian CS-US relations, they develop CRs that do have adaptive consequences.


Adaptive conditioned responses examples

ADAPTIVE CONDITIONED RESPONSES: EXAMPLES

  • Take study of conditioned salivation.

  • Saliva begins digestive process.

  • Ordinarily, food in mouth triggers salivation.

  • But, digestion is facilitated if saliva is already present before food is ingested.

  • Conditioned salivation produces this beneficial result.


Adaptive conditioned responses examples1

ADAPTIVE CONDITIONED RESPONSES: EXAMPLES

  • Take study of conditioned sexual arousal.

  • Male rats could mate with receptive females.

  • In some cases, copulation was preceded by distinctive CSs; in other cases, it was not.

  • CSs facilitated sexual performance by shortening male’s latency to copulate and by decreasing male’s time to ejaculate.

  • Adaptiveness of speeding up reproduction is obvious when one considers how vulnerable to predation rats are while mating.


Adaptive conditioned responses examples2

ADAPTIVE CONDITIONED RESPONSES: EXAMPLES

  • Take study of release of brain chemicals called endorphins.

  • Endorphins are endogenous morphine-like substances that work like morphine to reduce sensitivity to pain.

  • When animals are exposed to Pavlovian conditioning with shock US, their sensitivity to shock decreases in CS.

  • CS appears to trigger endorphin release.


Crs that oppose urs

CRs THAT OPPOSE URs

  • Data for adaptiveness of CRs also comes from cases where CR is opposite of UR.

  • Typical UR to shock is increase in heart rate.

  • Increased heart rate is useful because it is part of a general arousal state that mobilizes responses to danger.

  • But, CR to CS for shock is a decrease in heart rate. Antagonistic CR may be useful by reducing physiological damage produced by long periods of high cardiovascular output.


Crs that oppose urs1

CRs THAT OPPOSE URs

  • A dramatic example of CR-UR antagonism comes from studies in which morphine is US.

  • Morphine produces analgesia; it reduces pain sensitivity.

  • One can measure analgesic effect by placing a rat’s paw on a hotplate and seeing how long it takes for rat to withdraw its paw.

  • Under influence of morphine analgesia, paw withdrawal is slowed, presumably because morphine makes heat less painful.


Crs that oppose urs2

CRs THAT OPPOSE URs

  • If injection itself serves as CS and morphine is US, then what is CR to injection?

  • We test by giving rat an injection of neutral salt water and placing its paw on hotplate.

  • Conditioned rat removes its paw even faster than rat without morphine conditioning.

  • After conditioning, heat seems to hurt more to injection procedure alone.

  • CR to injection is increase in pain sensitivity, whereas UR to morphine is decrease in pain sensitivity.


Conditioning and tolerance

Conditioning and Tolerance

  • People’s responses to many drugs change as they continue to use them.

  • A given dose becomes less effective as a person’s experience with it continues.

  • We say the person has developed tolerance to drug.

  • To produce an effect of a fixed magnitude, larger doses of drug must be administered.


Conditioning and tolerance1

Conditioning and Tolerance

  • Tolerance has traditionally been considered to result from a physiological process, like habituation.

  • Although this physiological process may partly account for tolerance, recent studies suggest that tolerance may also result from Pavlovian conditioning.

  • If Pavlovian CRs grow and are opposite in sign from URs, then net response to morphine injections will become smaller.


Opponent process theory

OPPONENT PROCESS THEORY

  • Examples of CRs that are opposite of URs prompted a theory of motivation that is quite broad in scope and has been extremely influential.

  • Opponent process theory.

  • Details of theory rest on hypothesized states that accompany and follow powerful USs.

  • Other theories have also been proposed.


Using conditioning principles to treat addiction

USING CONDITIONING PRINCIPLES TO TREAT ADDICTION

  • Regardless of merits of specific theories, conditioning principles can importantly elucidate drug use and abuse.

  • Specific therapeutic techniques have emanated from Pavlovian laboratories:

    • Extinction: Repeated presentations of CS without US.

    • Counterconditioning: Associate US with other, noxious US.


Pavlovian crs final summary

Pavlovian CRs: Final Summary

  • Every instance of Pavlovian conditioning reflects development of an association between CS and some aspect of US.

  • Discovering laws to describe development of these associations, no matter how they may be shown in behavior, has been of concern to researchers in Pavlovian conditioning.


Pavlovian crs final summary1

Pavlovian CRs: Final Summary

  • Nevertheless, understanding translation of learning into performance is also an important objective.

  • Such understanding may help illuminate adaptive significance of Pavlovian conditioning.


  • Login