1 / 88

Effects of stimulus preexposure

Effects of stimulus preexposure. Stimulus preexposure affects our ability to perceive and discriminate stimuli: Stimulus recognition memory – in humans can be by report in animals indexed by spontanous object recognition task A A A B

harper
Download Presentation

Effects of stimulus preexposure

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. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Effects of stimulus preexposure

  2. Stimulus preexposure affects our ability to perceive and discriminate stimuli: • Stimulus recognition memory – in humans can be by report • in animals indexed by spontanous object recognition task • AA A B • if recognise A will explore B more (A is boring) • Ennaceur & Delacour 1988 • Aim was to develop a memory task parallel to those used in humans • for e.g. studying amnesia

  3. Perceptual learning -- improves discrimination between stimuli

  4. How do these effects work? We need to understand exactly what stimulus exposure does Gibson & Gibson (1955) proposed: "percepts change over time by progressive elaboration of qualities, features and dimensions of variation" They assumed that effects of stimulus exposure are not associative - but no formal mechanism was proposed Were they right? Or are these phenomena the result of associative processes?

  5. In lecture we will ask what are possible explanations of • 1 object recognition? • perceptual learning? • in doing so we will talk about what the general associative model says are the effects of stimulus preexposure

  6. According to the associative model, stimulus preexposure can have several effects on behaviour: • it can reduce responding – habituation • this will help us understand recognition memory • - relevance to human amnesia

  7. According to the associative model, stimulus preexposure can have several effects on behaviour: • 2 it can reduce learning -- latent inhibition • this will help us understand those conditions in which learning is aberrant or harmful • schizophrenia • chemotherapy ANV • phobias • drug tolerance effects

  8. According to the associative model, stimulus preexposure can have several effects on behaviour: • it can produce learning among elements of the stimulus – within-compound associations • helps us understand how we learn about complex events

  9. Stimulus object recognition This seems very similar to habituation task: A? large UCR A A A A A? small UCR A A A B

  10. Three theories of habituation Fall within general associative model: Wagner's theory S-R theory Nonassociative (maybe!) -- Comparator theory

  11. Wagner's theory Short term habituation After many trials CS elements in A2 --> reduced response A2 I A1 A2 I A1

  12. Wagner's theory Long term habituation Context becomes associated with CS. Sends CS elements into A2 --> reduced response A2 I A1 A2 I A1 context

  13. How can we test Wagner's theory? predicts unconditioned response will return in a different context Honey and Hall (1989) investigated this: habituated stimulus in one context, test same or different context

  14. Train tone Test Sametone ucr Different tone UCR what is wrong with this design?

  15. Train tone Test Sametone Different tone

  16. Train tone click Test Sametone Different tone

  17. Train tone click Test Sametone click Different tone click

  18. rats responding for food; novel stimulus suppresses this responding low ratio--> high suppression Day 1 Day 8 Test

  19. rats responding for food; novel stimulus suppresses this responding low ratio--> high suppression Day 1 Day 8 Test

  20. This interpretation of Wagner's theory fails in explaining simple habituation... how about other theories? S-R theory and comparator theory say nothing about context...

  21. S-R theory • Link between S and R becomes less effective with use UR UR

  22. Comparator theory Stimulus compared with internal representation. Novel stimulus has no internal representation, so strong UCR is elicited Mismatch! Large UR

  23. Comparator theory ...but preexposure gradually allows a mental representation of the stimulus to be established: Partial mismatch! Smaller UR

  24. Comparator theory until detailed stimulus representation is formed Match! small UR

  25. Which is right? The stimulus omission effect ? ? Train with a compound stimulus Test with all or part

  26. S-R theory says..... UR UR UR UR Habituation maintained UR

  27. Comparator theory says..... Mismatch! Match! Habituation abolished Mismatch!

  28. Habituation is abolished (see Hall 91)... but is it good evidence for comparator theory? Or could S-R theory explain it…? UR UR UR UR aftereffects of tone are like a novel stimulus UR UR

  29. Other evidence for comparator theory Extended exposure increases detail in stored representation After short training.... After extended training

  30. Other evidence for comparator theory Stimulus now easier to discriminate from other, similar stimuli * * * * test stimulus Hard to discriminate Easy to discriminate

  31. predicts extended training will reduce generalisation: A+ CR A+ A+ A+ A+ A+ A+ cr predict less generalised responding to B after more training (usually more training --> more generalisation as more responding to A) A B

  32. Hoffeld 1962 cited in Hall 91 Responding to B 50 95 190 285 Training of A -->

  33. Problem: comparator theory has no mechanism. …. and is it necessarily nonassociative? McLaren & Mackintosh 2000 proposed several associative mechanisms arising from stimulus preexposure that could produce such effects unitisation (sticking units together)

  34. this idea is actually very similar to Wagner’s model... when elements are linked they send each other into A2, explaining habituation

  35. temporal B relatively novel spatial A’ and B’ in unfamiliar place can this theory explain these stimulus recognition effects? B B A A A B A B A B A’ B’ B’ A’

  36. from Good Barnes Staal McGregor & Honey 2007 Train Test can this theory explain these stimulus recognition effects? A B B B A A A A A B A B A’ B’ B’ A’ A B

  37. Before Perceptual Learning --Latent inhibition (LI) Preexposing a stimulus reduces learning about it. Can’t really talk about effects of stimulus preexposure without talking about latent inhibition LI important for a number of practical reasons faulty latent inhibition indicated in schizophrenia relevant to preventing anticipatory nausea and vomiting relevant to phobias, drug addiction – determines what is learned about

  38. Theories of Latent Inhibition • 1 Wagner's theory: CS predictability • 2 CS predictive ability (Pearce &Hall 1980, Mackintosh 1975) • 3 Retrieval failure

  39. Wagner's account: CS predictability • context context context context • CS CS CS CS+ • If CS preexposed, association forms between context and CS • Now context puts most CS elements into A2 • CS can't easily recruit elements into A1  poor learning • Theory predicts that latent inhibition will be context specific • Honey and Hall 1989 – context specificity of habituation – went on to look at latent inhibition in same experiment:

  40. TRAIN tone click TEST Same tone click Different tone click

  41. TRAIN tone click TEST Same tone+ click+ Different tone+ click+

  42. Day 1 Day 8 Test Conditioning

  43. Wagner's account also predicts that extinguishing the context should reduce latent inhibition, because this will weaken the context-->CS association: click click+ SLOW click+ FAST click

  44. Baker and Mercier (1982) tested effect of context extinction: Group no pre click+ FAST Group pre click click+ slow Group pre/extclick click+ FAST group pre should show latent inhibition, but group pre/ext should not

  45. predictabilityof CS does not determine latent inhibition ....so Wagner's theory not completely right can you think of another way Wagner can explain latent inhibition?

  46. CS predictive ability theories • V =  ( - V) •  refers to associability of a stimulus. Rescorla & Wagner assumed that this was a fixedproperty of a stimulus • But Mackintosh (1975) suggested that  might changewith experience -- • good predictors command attention

  47. Mackintosh 1975 • VA =  ( - VA) • A >0 if I - VAI < I - VxI • if CS is betterat predicting the outcome than anything else, • then its goesUP • A <0 if I - VAI >= I - VxI • if CS isno better at predicting the outcome than anything else, • then its goes DOWN

More Related