slide1 l.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Conditional learning: Switching associations PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Conditional learning: Switching associations

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 94

Conditional learning: Switching associations - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 104 Views
  • Uploaded on

Conditional learning: Switching associations. Are there any types of learning that associative theory cannot explain?. "Red Light". "Red Light". "Red Light". sometimes what the CS is associated with depends on the context... e.g. lexical ambiguity task : ambiguous word e.g. bank

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Conditional learning: Switching associations' - jeffery


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
slide1

Conditional learning:

Switching associations

slide6

sometimes what the CS is associated with depends on the context...

e.g. lexical ambiguity task:

ambiguous word e.g. bank

subject must define based on semantic context

- country walk? going shopping?

slide7

e.g. Continuous performance test (CPT)

A x A y B y B y B x A y B y A y A x B x B y

slide8

e.g. Continuous performance test (CPT)

A x A y B y B y B x A y B y A y A x B x B y

must respond to x if preceded by A (not B)

i.e. A: x+, y- B: x-

slide9

e.g. Continuous performance test (CPT)

A x A y B y B y B x A y B y A y A x B x B y

must respond to x if preceded by A (not B)

must respond to y if preceded by B (not A)

i.e. A: x+, y- B: x-, y+

slide11

e.g. Stroop!

red

yellow

green

slide12

Patients with schizophrenia have been reported to have difficulty on such tasks:

Lexical ambiguity e.g., Cohen et al, 1988

Continuous performance test e.g., Cornblatt et al, 1989

Stroop e.g., Wysocki & Sweet, 1985

slide13

Patients with schizophrenia have been reported to have difficulty on such tasks:

Lexical ambiguity e.g., Cohen et al, 1988

Continuous performance test e.g., Cornblatt et al, 1989

Stroop e.g., Wysocki & Sweet, 1985

... and in rats performance on such tasks disrupted by amphetamine

-- restored by D1/D2 receptor antagonists

slide14

e.g. Dunn et al., 2005Instrumental biconditional task:

Tone: Left lever --> food Right lever --> no food

Click: Left lever --> no food Right lever --> food

control 0.5 1.0 1.5

dose of amphetamine

slide15

So how are these tasks performed? They cannot be the result of simple associations

  • Tone: Left lever --> food Right lever --> no food
  • Click: Left lever --> no food Right lever --> food
  • Tone and click paired with food
  • Left and Right paired with food
  • One interpretation is that they are a type of conditional learning
slide16

Conditional cues are interesting because they are not just Pavlovian CSs...

  • - occasion setters do not extinguish
  • get better occasion setting when occasion setter is not a good predictor of the US
  • Simultaneous: light+tone-food tone-
  • Serial: light……tone-food tone-
  • so what are they? beyond the association...
slide17

Outline of lecture:

Consider how conditional cues work

Consider how conditional cues form

Look at what conditional cues can do -- example of therapeutic implications

slide18

Illustrate with experiment with pigeons (Bonardi 1996)

Click: red-->food red -->nothing

Flash: green -->food green -->nothing

Birds trained with two occasion setters - 10-sec presentations of diffuse cues - followed by 5-sec presentation of a keylight

food

Click red

red

slide19

Question 1:

How do they work?

red

food

?

Click

slide20

Rescorla’s modulation theory (Rescorla, 1985)

red

food

Click

Whenever a CS is presented, it must activate the US representation to get a conditioned response.

If the click is a positive occasion setter, it lowers its activation threshold -- making it easier for the CS to activate.

slide21

Holland’s and-gate theory (1983)

food

red

Click

The click acts as an and-gate, allowing activation to flow from the CS to the US, and so elicit a conditioned response.

slide22

Click: red-->food red -->nothing

Flash: green -->food green -->nothing

These theories make different

predictions about transfer

- will the clicker elevate

responding to the green keylight?

slide23

These theories make different

predictions about transfer

- will the clicker elevate

responding to the green keylight?

green

red

food

Click

Holland

says no

Rescorla

says yes

slide24

e.g. (Bonardi 1996)

Click: red-->food red -->nothing

Flash: green -->food green -->nothing

Test:

Same: Click: Red Flash : Green

Diff: Click: Green Flash : Red

slide26

but this transfer could be generalisation - red/green confusion

.... so transfer not conclusive evidence for Rescorla

slide27

Plus Rescorla predicts click should be equally good with red and green - and it isn't...

So can Holland's theory do better?

slide28

Holland predicts incomplete transfer - so is he right?

--or is this generalisation decrement?

Click: red-->food red -->nothing

Flash: green -->food green -->nothing

Test:

Same: Click: Red Flash : Green

Diff: Click: Green!!! Flash : Red!!!

Novel stimulus combination disrupts responding on Diff trials????

slide29

(Bonardi 1996) Tests this possibility:

Group OS - Click and Flash are occasion setters

Click: red-->food red -->nothing

Flash: green -->food green -->nothing

Test:

Same: Click: Red Flash : Green

Diff: Click: GreenFlash: Red

Expect more responding on same than different

slide30

(Bonardi 1996) Tests this possibility:

Group pseudo OS - Click and Flash are NOT occasion setters

Click: red-->food red -->food

Flash: green -->food green -->food

Test:

Same: Click: Red Flash : Green

Diff: Click: Green Flash : Red

If previous result generalisation decrement, predict same here

If previous result occasion setting, do not...

slide31

Group OS Group POS

So it's not generalisation decrement...

can you think of a reason why you might get more responding

on same than on different trials? Wagner is a clue....

slide32

So occasion setter is specific to the particular CS...

(and Rescorla himself has generated evidence against his theory

e.g. Rescorla, 1991a; 1991b) - so probably Holland wins...

But how about the US? is click more effective with CSs paired

with the same US as red?

food

red

Click

slide33

So occasion setter is specific to the particular CS...

(and Rescorla himself has generated evidence against his theory

e.g. Rescorla, 1991a; 1991b) - so probably Holland wins...

But how about the US? is click more effective with CSs paired

with the same US as red?

different

food

green

?

red

food

Click

slide34

Morell & Davidson, 2002

Light: tone -->suc Light- tone-

Group Same US click-->suc

or

Group Diff US click -->oil

Test: Light tone Same CS Same US

Light click (group Same) Diff CS Same US

Light click (group Diff) Diff CS Diff US

slide35

Same CS Diff CSDiff CS

Same US Same US Diff US

So if you change the US get dramatically reduced effect

slide36

So occasion setter is specific to the particular US as well...

Conclude: evidence supports Holland - acts on association

- do get transfer, based on CS-CS and US-US generalisation

- if change anything in association, transfer attenuated

different

food

green

red

food

Click

slide37

Question 2:

How do they form?

If this is not an association, then where does it come from?

red

food

Click

slide38

Where do associations come from? Associative learning explained by Rescorla-Wagner model (among others)

Shows certain characteristics - e.g. blocking:

A-->food AX --->food X? learning about X poor

red

food

Click

Does occasion setting show blocking?

slide39

Biographie de Al CAPONE :

Ni McGurn, ni Capone ne pensèrent un seul moment que l'assassinat planifié de Bugs Moran serait un événement qui deviendrait notoire pour plusieurs dizaines d'années. Capone se prélassant en Floride, comment pouvait-on le rendre responsable du meurtre d'un contrebandier ? «Machine Gun» McGurn avait le plein contrôle de l'attaque. Il rassembla une équipe de première classe composée gens de l'extérieur : Fred «Killer» Burke en était le chef et était assisté par un tirreur du nom de James Ray. Deux autres membres étaient John scalise et Albert Anselmi, qui avaient été utilisés pour le meurtre de Frankie Yale. Joseph Lolordo faisait aussi partie du groupe, tout comme Harry et Phil Keywell, du Purple Gang de Détroit. Le plan de McGurn était créatif. Un contrebandier invita les membres du gang de Moran à le rencontrer dans un garage afin de leur offrir du whisky de qualité à un prix imbattable. La livraison allait être faite à 10h30, le 14 février. Les hommes de McGurn allaient les attendre vêtus d'uniformes de police et d'imperméables, donnant l'impression qu'un raid allait se dérouler.

slide40

Blocking of occasion setting (Bonardi 1991)

Group Exp

Click: noise-->food noise -->nothing

Rats: 3-min presentation of a click, with embedded reinforced 5-s noise presentations. Outside click noise nonreinforced

Click

+

+

+

+

+

noise

slide41

Blocking of occasion setting (Bonardi 1991)

Group Exp

Click: noise-->food noise -->nothing

Group Con

Click: noise / food noise -->nothing

Click

+

+

+

+

+

noise

slide42

Blocking of occasion setting (Bonardi 1991)

Group Exp

Click: noise-->food noise -->nothing

Group Con

Click: noise / food noise -->nothing

then all

Click+Light: noise-->food noise -->nothing

test allLight: noise ?? noise??

slide43

so blocking of

occasion setting

occurred - learning

about L blocked

only when Click

an occasion

setter

Group E Group C

slide44

And just in case you weren't convinced...

similar experiments have been performed to demonstrate the parallel effect with Sd's

Click

+

+

+

+

+

response

slide45

Colwill & Rescorla, 1990

again looks at blocking, but relies on principle of unblocking

mismatch between outcomes in two stages attenuates blocking

e.g. Dickinson Hall and Mackintosh, 1976

A-->sh AX --->sh X? learning poor

A-->sh AX --->sh-sh X? learning restored

A-->sh-sh AX --->sh-sh X? learning poor

A-->sh-sh AX --->sh X? learning restored

slide46

Colwill & Rescorla, 1990

noise (Sd)

lever

sucrose

noise (Sd)

chain

food

slide47

Trained two further Sd's in compound with the noise:

Stage 2:

Same

Different

noise (Sd)

lever

sucrose

noise (Sd)

chain

food

noise (Sd)

lever

sucrose

light (Sd)

chain

food

noise (Sd)

lever

food

flash (Sd)

chain

sucrose

slide48

will the Noise block the Flash or the Light ??

Stage 2:

Same

Different

noise (Sd)

lever

sucrose

noise (Sd)

chain

food

noise (Sd)

lever

sucrose

light (Sd)

chain

food

noise (Sd)

lever

food

flash (Sd)

chain

sucrose

slide49

animals learn the same thing about the noise in Stage 1 as they do about about the lightin Stage 2

Same ---> blocking

but animals learn different things about the noise in Stage 1 and about the flashin Stage 2

Different--> unblocking

therefore predict more control by the flash than by the light

slide50

Flash

Light

slide51

this means occasion setters show blocking

it also demonstrates forcibly that occasion setters convey

information about CS/US combinations

-- if combination changed, learning differs...

this is all consistent with Holland's theory

slide52

What does all this mean?

One suggestion -- Hierarchical account: CS-->US association can act as independent associable unit, and occasion setter becomes associated with it (e.g. Bonardi, 1998)

associative learning, but not as we know it...

is there any evidence that CS-->US association can act as an independent unit?

Click

red

food

slide53

Acquired equivalence experiment as a test of this idea

Stimuli become more similar if trained in the same way

A x

B x

C y

D y

B ? Fear CR

A shock

C no shock

D ? Fear CR

x, y food and no food

based on original demonstration by Honey & Hall, 1989

slide54

An explanation in terms of mediated conditioning:

x

A x

B x

C y

D y

A shock

y

C no shock

An association can form between x and shock even though x is only being thought about

slide55

An explanation in terms of mediated conditioning:

x

x

A x

B x

C y

D y

A shock

B shock

y

y

C no shock

D no shock

now when you present B, it makes you think about shock via x

some experiments have tested x and shown this to be true

slide56

Now consider a more complex version (e.g Honey & Watt, 1998)

A x+ y-

B x+ y-

C y+ x-

D y+ x-

B ? Fear CR

A shock

C no shock

D ? Fear CR

x and y are paired with paired with food or not

slide57

A more complex explanation in terms of mediated conditioning:

x +

A x+ y-

B x+ y-

C y+ x-

D y+ x-

A shock

y +

C no shock

slide58

A more complex explanation in terms of mediated conditioning:

x +

x +

A x+ y-

B x+ y-

C y+ x-

D y+ x-

A shock

B shock

y +

y +

C no shock

D no shock

If x+ and y+ associations act as independent associable units, they should act just like x and y in the simple task

slide60

Bonardi & Jennings 2008

Phase 1

A x+ y-

B x+ y-

C y+ x-

D y+ x-

10s

10s

A

x

+

A,B,C,D

visual

x, y

auditory

US

food pellet

slide61

Phase 1

Phase 2

Test 1

A x+ y-

B x+ y-

C y+ x-

D y+ x-

A ---> shock

C ---> no shock

x+ ---> ?

y+ ---> ?

If x+ signals shock it should evoke more fear than y+...

slide62

Test fear elicited by x+ and y+

Response baseline

P

Q

10s

10s

10s

x

+

x, y

auditory

US

food pellet

Suppression ratio Q / (P+Q)

slide65

Conclude:

CS-->US association can act as independent associable unit

So is hierarchical account right?

One alternative suggested by Honey & Watt 1998

Another by configural theory

slide66

A x+ y-

B x+ y-

y

no food

A

B

Hierarchical account says

that A and B both acquire

control over the x-->food and y-->food associations

A,B are occasion setters

x,y are CSs

Different things!

x

food

slide67

A x+ y-

B x+ y-

A

food

B

x

Honey and Watt say

that A and B and x become linked to a hidden unit that is associated with food (same for A, B, y and no food)

A and B and x and y play exactly the same roles!

A

no food

B

y

slide68

A x+ y-

B x+ y-

A x

food

food

B x

Configural theory says a blend of A and x, and of B and x, becomes associated with food, and blends of Ay and By become associated with no food

Normal classical conditioning with blended representations

A y

no food

B y

no food

slide69

So which is right?! Jury's out on hierarchical versus Honey & Watt (but we are working on it..) -- issue is whether occasion setters are special or not.

There is some evidence on deciding between hierarchical or configural theory -- e.g. Morell & Davidson 2002

Light: tone -->suc Light- tone-

Group Same USclick -->suc

Group Diff USclick -->oil

Test

Light/tone

Light/click(sameUS)

Light/click(diff US)

Same CS Diff CSDiff CS

Same US Same US Diff US

slide70

Train

Test same CS same US

diff CS same US

diff CS diff US

Light

tone

food

?

Light

tone

?

Light

click

?

Light

click

slide71

Train

Test same CS same US

diff CS same US

diff CS diff US

Light

tone

food

?

Light

tone

?

Configural theory says responding at test depends on similarity of training and test configures

Light

click

?

Light

click

but these do not change with identity of US

so last two conditions will be the same

slide72

Train

Test same CS same US

diff CS same US

diff CS diff US

Light

tone

suc

food

Light

tone

suc

?

Light

click

suc

?

..but what if identity of US encoded in configure?

then configural theory could explain these results --

?

Light

click

oil

now configures more different if US changes

slide73

But how about this - work with rats not yet published...

Jewel: click-->suc click--> Jewel--> 

tone --> sucbuzz --> oil

Test Jeweltone Jewel buzz

suc

Jewelclick

this part like Morell and Davidson

slide74

same feature, different target CS

configural theory predicts less responding when USs differ

Jewel: click-->suc 

tone --> suc buzz --> oil

Test Jeweltone Jewel buzz

Jewel

click

suc

suc

Jewel

tone

suc

Jewel

buzz

oil

slide75

hierarchical theory predicts the same, because the training and

test associations are more different when USs differ

Jewel: click-->suc 

tone --> suc buzz --> oil

Test Jeweltone Jewel buzz

slide76

responding higher on same than on different trials

both configural and hierarchical theory can explain these results

slide77

But how about doing converse...

same target CS different "occasion setter" (actually just a CS)

Jewel: click-->suc click--> Jewel--> 

dark... --> sucflash... --> oil

Test dark clickflash click

slide78

test compounds still differ by one or two components

so configural theory predicts exactly the same as before

Jewel: click-->suc

dark... --> suc flash... --> oil

Test dark click flash click

Jewel

click

suc

suc

dark

click

suc

flash

click

oil

slide79

but hierarchical theory does not predict anything

because test compounds do not include occasion setters

Jewel: click-->suc 

dark... --> suc flash... --> oil

Test dark click flash click

slide80

responding nonsignificantly higher on different trials -

configural theory predicted the opposite result

slide81

Conclude:

Some evidence against configural theory

But no discrimination yet between hierarchical account and Honey & Watt

A hot topic! Are occasion setters special or not?

slide82

Further questions: what else can occasion setters do?

when a CS signals a US animals learn this relation and respond

they also learn when the US will be presented - timing

Tone (20 sec) --> food

slide83

Can occasion setters tell the rat when the US will occur?

Short trials: Click: Light (6)+ Noise: Dark (6+)

Long trials: Click: Dark (30)+ Noise: Light (30+)

slide84

Can occasion setters tell the rat when the US will occur?

Short trials: Click: Light (6)+ Noise: Dark (6+)

Long trials: Click: Dark (30)+ Noise: Light (30+)

slide86

Then give probe trials - present Light and Dark for 90 seconds to look for the point of maximum responding

Short trials: Click: Light (6)+ Noise: Dark (6+)

Long trials: Click: Dark (30)+ Noise: Light (30+)

Expect peak responding to be at 6s on short trials and 30s on long trials

slide89

Conditional learning and Drug tolerance (Ramos et al., 2002)

Ethanol induces hypothermia, to which tolerance develops and this conditions to other cues that are present

Investigated effect of extinguishing cues.

Critical fact: CSs extinguish when presented alone

occasion setters do not

Flash (injection -->ethanol) injection -->saline

Tolerance conditions to Flash

slide90

Flash

(injection -->ethanol) injection -->saline

When Flash and injection simultaneous (not good for occasion setting) extinction of Flash removed its tolerance effects

Flash (injection -->ethanol) injection -->saline

When Flash and injection serial (good for occasion setting) extinction of Flash had no effect

slide91

So understanding occasion setting gives important information on the development of tolerance in drug addiction...

slide92

References

Bonardi, C. (1991). Blocking of occasion setting in feature-positive discriminations. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 43B, 431-448.

Bonardi, C. (1996). Transfer of occasion setting: The role of generalization decrement. Animal Learning and Behavior, 24, 277-289.

Bonardi, C. (1998). Conditional learning: An associative analysis. In P.C. Holland and N.A. Schmajuk (Eds.) Associative learning and cognition in animals: Occasion setting. Washington, D.C.:APA

Bonardi, C., & Jennings, D. (2007). Occasion setting of timing behaviour. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 33, 339-348.

Bonardi, C., & Jennings, D. (2008). Learning about associations: Evidence for a hierarchical account of occasion setting. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, in press.

Cohen RM, Semple, WE, Gross, M, Mordahl, TE, Holcomb, HH, Dowling, MS, & Pickar, D (1988) The effect of neuroleptics on dysfunction in a prefrontal substrate of sustained attention in schizophrenia. Life Sciences,43, 1141-1150.

slide93

Cornblatt, BA, Lenzenweger, MF, Erlenmeyer,-Kimling, L (1989). A continuous performance tist, idential pairs version. ll Contrasting attentional profiles in schizophrenic and depressed patients. Psychiatry Research, 29, 65-85.

Colwill, R.M., & Rescorla, R.A. (1990). Evidence for the hierarchical structure of instrumental learning. Animal Learning and Behavior, 18, 71-82.

Dickinson, A, Hall, G, & Mackintosh, NJ (1976). Surprise and the attenuation of blocking. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 2, 313-322.

Dunn, M., Futter, D., Bonardi, C., & Killcross, A.S. (2005). Attenuation of D-amphetamine-induced disruption of conditional discrimination performance by alpha-flupenthixol. Psychopharmacology, 177, 296-306.

Holland, P.C. (1983). Occasion setting in Pavlovian feature-positive discriminations. In M.L.Commons, R.J. Herrnstein & A.R Wagner (Eds.) Quantitative analyses of behavior: Discrimination Processes (Vol. 4: pp.183-206). New York: Ballinger.

Honey, R.C., & Hall, G. (1989). Acquired equivalence and distinctiveness of cues. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 15, 338-346.

slide94
Honey, RC, & Watt, A. (1998). Acquired relational equivalence: Implications for the nature o associative structures. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 24, 325-334.

Morell, J.V., & Davidson, T.L. (2002). Transfer across unconditioned stimuli in serial feature discrimination training. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 28, 83-96.

Ramos, BMC, Siegel, S, & Bueno, JLO (2002). Occasion setting and drug tolerance. Integrative Physiological and Behavioral Science, 37, 165-177.

Rescorla, R.A. (1985). Conditioned inhibition and facilitation. In R.R..Miller & N.E.Spear (Eds.) Information Processing in animals: Conditioned inhibition. (pp.299-326). Hillsdale N.J. Erlbaum.

Rescorla, R.A. (1991a). Combinations of modulators trained with the same and different target stimuli. Animal Learning and Behavior,19, 355-360.

Rescorla, R.A. (1991b). Transfer of inhibition and facilitation mediated by the original target stimulus Animal Learning and Behavior,9, 293-303.

Swartzentruber, D. (1995). Modulatory mechanisms in Pavlovian conditioning. Animal Learning

and Behavior, 23, 123-143.

Wysocki, MS, & Sweet, JJ (1985). Identification of brain damaged schizophrenic, and normal medical patients using a brief neuropsychological screening battery. International Journal of Clinical Neuropsychology, 7, 40-49.