Five sign-tracking experiments with pigeons investigated the breadth of stimulus generalization of excitatory and inhibitory conditioning. Using a compound stimulus test procedure, these experiments found evidence for a narrower generalization of associative strength in excitation than in inhibition. They also found a narrower associative gradient with a more strongly conditioned excitatory stimulus, although this did not seem to account for the difference between exciters and inhibitors. These results confirm earlier findings comparing generalization after acquisition and extinction and raise various theoretical issues about generalization.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BloughDS (1965). Definition and measurement in generalisation research. In D. I. Mostofsky (Ed.) Stimulus generalisationpp. 30–37Stanford, CA:Stanford University Press.
2.
HearstE (1968). Discrimination learning as the summation of excitation and inhibition.Science162, 1303–1306.
3.
HoneyRCHallG (1992). CS memory after trace conditioning.Learning and Motivation23, 145–155.
4.
HullCL (1943). Principles of behaviourNew York:Appleton-Century-Crofts.
5.
KaminLJ (1968). Attention-like processes in classical conditioning. In M. R. Jones (Ed.).Miami symposium on the prediction of behavior: Aversive stimulipp. 9–32Coral Gables, FL:University of Miami Press.
6.
KonorskiJSzwejkowskaG (1950). Chronic extinction and restoration of conditioned reflexes: I. Extinction against the excitatory background.Acta Biologiae Experimentalis15, 156–170.
7.
MackintoshNJ (1974). The psychology of animal learningNew York:Academic Press.
8.
MackintoshNJ (1975). A theory of attention: Variations in the associability of stimuli with reinforcement.Psychological Review82, 276–298.
9.
PavlovIP (1927). Conditioned reflexesOxford, UK:Oxford University Press.
10.
PearceJM (1987). A model of stimulus generalisation for Pavlovian conditioning.Psychological Review84, 61–73.
11.
RebergD (1972). Compound tests for excitation in early acquisition and after prolonged extinction of conditioned suppression.Learning and Motivation3, 246–258.
RescorlaRA (1982). Effect of a stimulus intervening between CS and reinforcer in sign-tracking.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behaviour Processes8, 131–141.
14.
RescorlaRA (1999). Partial reinforcement reduces the associative change produced by nonreinforcement.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behaviour Processes25, 403–414.
15.
RescorlaRA (2001). Are associative changes in acquisition and extinction negatively accelerated?.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behaviour Processes27, 307–315.
16.
RescorlaRAColdwellSE (1995). Summation in sign-tracking.Animal Learning and Behavior23, 314–326.
17.
RescorlaRAWagnerAR (1972). A theory of Pavlovian conditioning: Variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and nonreinforcement. In A. Black & W. F. Prokasy (Eds.).Classical conditioning IIpp. 64–99New York:Appleton-Century-Crofts.
18.
ShepardRN (1965). Approximation to uniform gradients of generalisation by monotone transformations of scale. In D. I. Mostofsky (Ed.).Stimulus generalisationpp. 94–110Stanford, CA:Stanford University Press.
19.
SpenceKW (1936). The nature of discrimination learning in animals.Psychological Review43, 427–449.
20.
WagnerAR (2003). Context-sensitive elemental theory.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology56B, 7–29.
21.
WagnerARBrandonSE (2001). A componential model of Pavlovian conditioning. In. R. R. Mowrer & S. B. Klein (Eds.), Handbook of contemporary learning theoriespp. 23–64Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
