Monkeys received discrimination training in which the choice of either a simultaneous or a serial compound of two visual images was rewarded before we assessed the monkeys’ conditioned preference for one of the images from the compound. This preference was reduced or blocked if the other image had been associated with reward rather than nonreward prior to compound training. By contrast, the preference was enhanced if the other image was associated with reward rather than nonreward after compound training. The magnitudes of the blocking and enhancement were unaffected by the temporal structure, simultaneous or serial, of the stimulus compound. These results are discussed in terms of the representation of stimulus compounds, the role of within-compound associations, and the similarities between serial and simultaneous visual compounds as processed by monkeys.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AitkenM. R. F.DickinsonA. (2005). Simulations of a modified SOP model applied to retrospective revaluation of human causal learning.Learning and Behavior33, 147–159.
2.
BalleineB. W.EspinetA.GonzalezF. (2005). Perceptual learning enhances retrospective revaluation of conditioned flavor preferences in rats.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes31, 341–350.
3.
BrowningP. G. F.EastonA.BuckleyM. J.GaffanD. (2005). The role of prefrontal cortex in object-in-place learning in monkeys.European Journal of Neuroscience22, 3281–3291.
4.
BrowningP. G. F.EastonA.GaffanD. (2007). Frontal-temporal disconnection abolishes object discrimination learning set in macaque monkeys.Cerebral Cortex17, 859–864.
5.
BrowningP. G. F.GaffanD. (2005). Frontal-temporal interaction and the learning of temporally extended events [Abstract].Society for Neuroscience Abstracts195, 4.
BusseyT. J.SaksidaL. M. (2002). The organization of visual object representations: A connectionist model of effects of lesions in perirhinal cortex.European Journal of Neuroscience15, 355–364.
8.
ChapmanG. B. (1991). Trial order affects cue interaction in contingency judgment.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition17, 837–854.
9.
DickinsonA. (2001). Causal learning: An associative analysis. The 28th Bartlett Memorial Lecture.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology54B, 3–25.
10.
DickinsonA.BurkeJ. (1996). Within-compound associations mediate the retrospective revaluation of causality judgements.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology37B, 397–416.
11.
DickinsonA.ShanksD. R.EvendenJ. L. (1984). Judgement of act–outcome contingency: The role of selective attribution.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology36A, 29–50.
12.
HollandP. C. (1999). Overshadowing and blocking as acquisition deficits: No recovery after extinction of overshadowing or blocking cues.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology52B, 307–333.
13.
KaminL. J. (1969). Selective association and conditioning.MackintoshN. J.HonigW. K.Fundamental issues in associative learning.Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada: Dalhousie University Press42–64.
14.
KaufmanM. A.BollesR. C. (1981). A nonassociative aspect of overshadowing.Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society18, 318–320.
15.
MackintoshN. J. (1975). A theory of attention: Variations in the associability of stimuli with reinforcement.Psychological Review82, 276–298.
16.
MartinI.LeveyA. B. (1991). Blocking observed in human eyelid conditioning.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology43B, 233–255.
17.
MillerR. R.BarnetR. C.GrahamN. J. (1992). Responding to a conditioned stimulus depends on the current associative states of other cues present during training of that specific stimulus.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes18, 251–264.
18.
MillerR. R.MatuteH. (1996). Biological significance in forward and backward blocking: Resolution of a discrepancy between animal conditioning and human causal judgment.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General125, 370–386.
19.
MillerR. R.MatzelL. D. (1988). The comparator hypothesis: A response rule for the expression of associations.BowerG. H.The psychology of learning and motivation.San Diego, CA: Academic Press22, 51–92.
20.
MurrayE. A.BusseyT. J. (1999). Perceptual-mnemonic functions of the perirhinal cortex.Trends in Cognitive Sciences3, 142–151.
21.
PearceJ. M. (1987). A model of stimulus generalization for Pavlovian conditioning.Psychological Review101, 587–607.
22.
PearceJ. M.HallG. (1980). A model for Pavlovian learning: Variations in the effectiveness of conditioned but not of unconditioned stimuli.Psychological Review87, 532–552.
23.
RescorlaR. A.DurlachP. J. (1981). Within-event learning in Pavlovian conditioning.SpearN. E.MillerR. R.Information processing in animals: Memory mechanisms.Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc81–111.
24.
RescorlaR. A.WagnerA. R. (1972). A theory of Pavlovian conditioning: Variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and non-reinforcement.BlackA. H.ProkasyW. F.Classical conditioning II: Current research and theory.New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts64–99.
25.
ShevillI.HallG. (2004). Retrospective revaluation effects in the conditioned suppression procedure.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology57B, 331–347.
26.
WagnerA. R. (1981). SOP: A model of automatic memory processing in animal behavior.SpearN. E.MillerR. R.Information processing in animals: Memory mechanisms.Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc5–47.
27.
Ward-RobinsonJ.HallG. (1999). The role of mediated conditioning in acquired equivalence.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology52B, 335–350.
28.
WassermanE. A.BerglanL. R. (1998). Backward blocking and recovery from overshadowing in human causal judgment: The role of within-compound associations.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology51B, 121–138.
