An autoshaping experiment with pigeons and three appetitive Pavlovian conditioning experiments with rats investigated the course of an ambiguous-feature discrimination in which trials with stimuli A and BC were followed by food, and trials with B and AC were not. The discrimination between A and B was acquired more rapidly than the discrimination between BC and AC in all experiments. Furthermore, the acquisition of conditioned responding with A was faster than that with BC for the three rat experiments. The results of these experiments are discussed in terms of elemental and configural theories of associative learning.
AlvaradoM. C.RudyJ. W. (1995a). A comparison of kainic acid plus colchicine and ibitenic acid-induced hippocampal formation damage on four configural tasks in rats.Behavioral Neuroscience109, 1052–1062.
2.
AlvaradoM. C.RudyJ. W. (1995b). Comparison of configural discrimination problems—implications for understanding the role of the hippocampal-formation in learning and memory.Psychobiology23, 178–184.
3.
BrandonS. E.VogelE. H.WagnerA. R. (2000). A componential view of configural cues in generalization and discrimination in Pavlovian conditioning.Behavioural Brain Research110, 67–72.
4.
HanJ. S.GallagherM.HollandP. C. (1998). Hippocampal lesions enhance configural learning by reducing proactive interference.Hippocampus8, 138–146.
5.
HollandP. C. (1991). Transfer of control in ambiguous feature discriminations.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes17, 231–248.
6.
HollandP. C.ReeveC. E. (1991). Acquisition and transfer of control by an ambiguous cue.Animal Learning & Behavior19, 113–124.
7.
HoneyR. C.GoodM.ManserK. L. (1998). Negative priming in associative learning: Evidence from a serial-habituation procedure.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes24, 229–237.
8.
KayeH.PearceJ. M. (1984). The strength of the orienting response during Pavlovian conditioning.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes10, 90–109.
9.
KruschkeJ. K. (1996). Base rates in category learning.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition22, 3–26.
10.
KruschkeJ. K. (2001). Towards a unified theory of attention in associative learning.Journal of Mathematical Psychology45, 812–863.
11.
MackintoshN. J. (1975). A theory of attention: Variations on the associability of stimuli with reinforcement.Psychological Review82, 276–298.
12.
McLarenI. P. L.MackintoshN. J. (2000). An elemental model of associative learning: I. Latent inhibition and perceptual learning.Animal Learning & Behavior28, 211–246.
13.
McLarenI. P. L.MackintoshN. J. (2002). Associative learning and elemental representation: II. Generalization and discrimination.Animal Learning & Behavior30, 177–200.
14.
NakajimaS. (1992). The effect of temporal relationship of stimulus compound on ambiguous discrimination in the pigeons autoshaping.Behavioural Processes27, 65–74.
15.
NakajimaS. (1997). Transfer testing after serial feature-ambiguous discrimination in Pavlovian keypeck conditioning.Animal Learning & Behavior25, 413–426.
16.
NakajimaS.KobayashiH. (2000). Differential outcomes effect on instrumental serial feature-ambiguous discrimination in rats.The Psychological Record50, 189–198.
17.
PearceJ. M. (1987). A model for stimulus-generalization in Pavlovian conditioning.Psychological Review94, 61–73.
18.
PearceJ. M. (1994). Similarity and discrimination—a selective review and a connectionist model.Psychological Review101, 587–607.
19.
PearceJ. M. (2002). Evaluation and development of a connectionist theory of configural learning.Animal Learning and Behavior30, 73–95.
20.
PearceJ. M.HallG. (1980). A model for Pavlovian learning: Variations in he effectiveness of conditioned but not of unconditioned stimuli.Psychological Review87, 532–552.
21.
PearceJ. M.RedheadE. S. (1993). The influence of an irrelevant stimulus on two discriminations.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes19, 180–190.
22.
RedheadE. S.PearceJ. M. (1995). Similarity and discrimination learning.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology48B, 46–66.
23.
RescorlaR. A. (1972). “Configural” conditioning in discrete-trial bar pressing.Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology79, 307–317.
24.
RescorlaR. A. (1973). Evidence for “unique stimulus” account of configural conditioning.Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology85, 331–338.
25.
RescorlaR. A. (1993). Interference among modulators.Animal Learning & Behavior21, 179–186.
26.
RescorlaR. A.WagnerA. R. (1972). A theory of Pavlovian conditioning: Variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and nonreinforcement. .BlackA. H.ProkasyW. K.Classical conditioning IINew York: Appleton-Century-Crofts64–99.
27.
WagnerA. R. (2003). Context-sensitive elemental theory.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology56B, 7–29.
28.
WagnerA. R.BrandonS. E. (2001). A componential theory of Pavlovian conditioning. .MowerR. R.KleinS. B.Handbook of contemporary learning theoriesMahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates23–64.
29.
WagnerA. R.RescorlaR. A. (1972). Inhibition in Pavlovian conditioning: Applications of a theory.BoakesR. A.HalidayM. S.Inhibition and learningNew York: Academic Press301–336.
30.
WilliamsD. A.MehtaR.DumontJ.-L. (2004). Conditions favoring superconditioning of irrelevant conditioned stimuli.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes30, 139–148.
31.
WoodburyC. B. (1943). The learning of stimulus patterns in dogs.Journal of Comparative Psychology35, 29–40.
