Participants in two human goal-tracking experiments were simultaneously trained with negative patterning (NP) and positive patterning (PP) discriminations (A+, B+, AB–, C–, D–, CD+). Both elemental and configural models of associative learning predict a PP advantage, such that NP is solved less readily than PP. However, elemental models like the unique cue approach additionally predict responding in AB– trials to be initially stronger than that in A+ and B+ trials due to summation of associative strength. Both experiments revealed a PP advantage and a strong summation effect in AB– trials in the first half of the experiments, irrespective of whether the same US was used for both discriminations (Experiment 1) or two different USs (Experiment 2). We discuss that the correct predictions of the unique cue approach are based on its assumptions of non-normalized and context-independent stimulus processing rather than elemental processing per se.
BellinghamW. P., Gillette-BellinghamK., & KehoeE. J. (1985). Summation and configuration 2016 schedules with the rat and rabbit. Animal Learning & Behavior, 13, 152–164.
2.
BrainardD. H. (1997). The psychophysics toolbox. Spatial Vision, 10, 433–436.
3.
BrandonS. E., VogelE. H., & WagnerA. R. (2000). A componential view of configural cues in generalization and discrimination in Pavlovian conditioning. Behavioural Brain Research, 110, 67–72.
4.
DeisigN., SandozJ. C., GiurfaM., & LachnitH. (2007). The trial-spacing effect in olfactory patterning discriminations in honeybees. Behavioural Brain Research, 176(2), 314–322.
5.
DelamaterA. R., SosaW., & KatzM. (1999). Elemental and configural processes in patterning discrimination learning. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 52B, 97–124.
6.
GhirlandaS. (2015). On elemental and configural models of associative learning. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 64–65, 8–16.
7.
HarrisJ. A. (2006). Elemental representations of stimuli in associative learning. Psychological Review, 113, 584–605.
8.
HarrisJ. A., GharaeiS., & MooreC. A. (2009). Representations of single and compound stimuli in negative and positive patterning. Learning & Behavior, 37, 230–245.
9.
HarrisJ. A., & LiveseyE. J. (2010). An attention-modulated associative network. Learning & Behavior, 38, 1–26.
10.
HarrisJ. A., LiveseyE. J., GharaeiS., & WestbrookR. F. (2008). Negative patterning is easier than a biconditional discrimination. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 34, 494–500.
11.
KehoeE. J., HorneA. J., HorneP. S., & MacraeM. (1994). Summation and configuration between and within sensory modalities in classical conditioning of the rabbit. Animal Learning & Behavior, 22, 19–26.
12.
KleinerM., BrainardD., & PelliD. (2007). What's new in psychtoolbox-3. Perception, 36, ECVP Abstract Supplement.
13.
LachnitH., & KimmelH. D. (1993). Positive and negative patterning in human classical skin conductance response conditioning. Animal Learning & Behavior, 21, 314–326.
14.
LachnitH., & KimmelH. D. (2000). Experimental manipulation of a unique cue in Pavlovian SCR conditioning with humans. Biological psychology, 53, 105–129.
15.
LachnitH., & KinderA. (2000). Stimulus representations in human pavlovian conditioning: Implications of missing negative transfer across response systems. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 53B, 209–224.
16.
LiveseyE. J., ThorwartA., & HarrisJ. A. (2011). Comparing positive and negative patterning in human learning. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64, 2316–2333.
17.
MackintoshN. J. (1975). A theory of attention: Variations in the associability of stimuli with reinforcement. Psychological Review, 82, 276–298.
18.
McLarenI. P. L., & MackintoshN. J. (2000). An elemental model of associative learning: I. Latent inhibition and perceptual learning. Animal Learning & Behavior, 28, 211–246.
19.
McLarenI. P. L., & MackintoshN. J. (2002). Associative learning and elemental representation: II. Generalization and discrimination. Animal Learning & Behavior, 30, 177–200.
20.
MelchersK. G., ShanksD. R., & LachnitH. (2008). Stimulus coding in human associative learning: Flexible representations of parts and wholes. Behavioural Processes, 77, 413–427.
21.
PearceJ. M. (1987). A model for stimulus generalization in Pavlovian conditioning. Psychological Review, 94, 61–73.
22.
PearceJ. M. (1994). Similarity and discrimination: A selective review and a connectionist model. Psychological Review, 101, 587–607.
23.
PearceJ. M., & HallG. (1980). A model for Pavlovian learning: Variations in the effectiveness of conditioned but not of unconditioned stimuli. Psychological Review, 87, 532–552.
24.
RedheadE. S., & PearceJ. M. (1995). Stimulus salience and negative patterning. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 48B, 67–83.
25.
RescorlaR. A. (1972). “Configural” conditioning in discrete-trial bar pressing. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 79, 307–317.
26.
RescorlaR. A., & WagnerA. (1972). A theory of Pavlovian conditioning: Variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and non-reinforcement. In BlackA., & ProkasyW. (Eds.), Classical conditioning. II. Current research and theory, (pp. 64–99). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
27.
TheinT., WestbrookR. F., & HarrisJ. A. (2008). How the associative strengths of stimuli combine in compound: Summation and overshadowing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 34, 155–166.
28.
ThorwartA. (2010). Stimulus representation and processing in human associative learning: An evaluation of current elemental and configural associative learning theories (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://archiv.ub.uni-marburg.de/diss/z2010/0076
29.
ThorwartA., HarrisJ. A., & LachnitH. (2016). An inhibited elements model–computational implementation and simulations. Manuscript in preparation.
30.
ThorwartA., & LachnitH. (2009). Symmetrical generalization decrements: Configural stimulus processing in human contingency learning. Learning & Behavior, 37, 107–115.
31.
ThorwartA., LiveseyE. J., & HarrisJ. A. (2012). Normalization between stimulus elements in a model of Pavlovian conditioning: Showjumping on an elemental horse. Learning & Behavior, 40, 334–346.
32.
ThorwartA., SchultheisH., KönigS., & LachnitH. (2009). ALTSim: A MATLAB simulator for current associative learning theories. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 29–34.
33.
WagnerA. R. (2003). Context-sensitive elemental theory. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 56B, 7–29.
34.
WagnerA. R., & BrandonS. E. (2001). A componential theory of Pavlovian conditioning. In MowrerR., & KleinS. (Eds.), Handbook of contemporary learning theories, chap. 2, (pp. 23–63). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
35.
WhitlowJ. W.Jr (2010). Effect of outcome valence on positive and negative patterning in human causal reasoning. Learning & Behavior, 38, 145–159.
36.
WhitlowJ. W.Jr (2013). A positive patterning advantage with complex but not simple patterning: A cue constellation approach. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66, 2118–2134.
37.
WhitlowJ. W.Jr, & WagnerA. R. (1972). Negative patterning in classical conditioning: Summation of response tendencies to isolable and configural components. Psychonomic Science, 27, 299–301.
38.
YoungM. E., WassermanE. A., JohnsonJ. L., & JonesF. L. (2000). Positive and negative patterning in human causal learning. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 53B, 121–138.
