Incidental Cue Learning in Rats

Abstract

Continuity theories of discrimination learning appear to say that animals learn equally about all cues impinging upon their receptors; noncontinuity theories that they learn about only one cue at a time. Experiment I showed that neither of these positions is correct: rats trained to attend to one cue learned less about a subsequently introduced incidental cue than rats given no such pretraining; but attention to one cue did not totally prevent learning about the other. A second experiment established that if rats are trained with one cue, and a second cue is then also made relevant, the amount learned about this second cue varies directly with (a) the abruptness with which it is introduced, and (b) the difficulty of the original discrimination.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bitterman

M. E.

Coate

W. B.

(1950). Some new experiments on the nature of discrimination learning in the rat. J. comp. physiol, Psychol. 43, 198–210.

Blum

R. A.

Blum

J. S.

(1949). Factual issues in the “continuity controversy,”. Psychol. Rev. 56, 33–50.

Broadbent

D. E.

(1958). Perception and Communication. London.

Broadbent

D. E.

(1961). Human perception and animal learning. Current Problems in Animal Behaviour Thorpe

W. H.

Zangwill

O. L.

Cambridge

248–72.

Bruner

J. S.

Matter

Papanek

M. L.

(1955). Breadth of learning as a function of drive level and mechanization. Psychol. Rev. 62, 1–10.

Grossman

E. R. F. W.

(1955). The measurement of discriminability. Quart. J. exp. Psychol. 7, 176–97.

Hughes

C. L.

North

A. J.

(1959). Effect of introducing a partial correlation between a critical cue and a previously irrelevant cue. J. comp. physiol. Psychol. 52, 126–8.

Lashley

K. S.

(1942). An examination of the “continuity theory” as applied to discriminative learning. J. gen. Psychol. 26, 241–65.

Lawrence

D. H.

(1949). Acquired distinctiveness of cues: I. Transfer between discriminations on the basis of familiarity with the stimulus. J. exp. Psychol. 39, 770–84.

10.

MacCaslin

E. F.

Wodinsky

Bitterman

M. E.

(1952). Stimulus-generalization as a function of prior training. Amer. J. Pyschol. 65, 1–15.

11.

Mackintosh

N. J.

(1963). The effect of irrelevant cues on reversal learning in the rat. Brit. J. Psychol. 54, 127–34.

12.

Perkins

C. C.

Hershberger

W. A.

Weyant

R. G.

(1959). Difficulty of a discrimination as a determiner of subsequent generalization along another dimension. J. exp. Psychol. 57, 181–6.

13.

Sutherland

N. S.

(1959). Stimulus analysing mechanisms. Proceedings of a Symposium on the Mechanization of Thought Processes Vol. 2 London: H.M.S.O. 575–609.

14.

Sutherland

N. S.

Mackintosh

(1964). Discrimination learning: non-additivity of cues. Nature 201, 528–30.

15.

Sutherland

N. S.

Mackintosh

N. J.

Mackintosh

(1965). Shape and size discrimination in Octopus: the effect of pretraining along different dimensions. J. genet. Psychol. 106, 1–10.

16.

Terrace

H. S.

(1963). Errorless transfer of a discrimination across two continua. J. exp. anal. Behav. 6, 223–32.