An experiment with rats compared the ability of fixed and variable duration cues to produce blocking. Rats in group B (Blocking) were trained that both fixed- (F) and variable- (V) duration cues would be followed by food delivery. In a subsequent training stage F and V continued to be reinforced, but F was accompanied by X, and V by Y. In the test phase responding to X and Y was examined. Control group O (Overshadowing) received identical treatment, except that F and V were nonreinforced in the first training stage. In group B there was evidence for blocking, but only of X, which had been conditioned in compound with the fixed-duration F; there was no evidence for blocking of Y, which had been conditioned in compound with the variable-duration V. It is suggested that this result may occur because fixed cues reach a higher, more stable asymptote of associative strength than do their variable equivalents.
BalsamP. D., & GallistelC. R. (2009). Temporal maps and informativeness in associative learning. Trends in Neurosciences, 32, 73–78.
2.
BarnetR. C., GrahameN. J., & MillerR. R. (1993). Temporal encoding as a determinant of blocking. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 19, 215–230.
3.
BonardiC., MondragónE., BrilotB., & JenningsD. J. (2015). Overshadowing by fixed and variable duration stimuli. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 68, 523–542.
4.
ChurchR. M., & BroadbentH. A. (1990). Alternative representations of time, number and rate. Cognition, 37, 55–81.
5.
GallistelC. R., & GibbonJ. (2000). Time, rate and conditioning. Psychological Review, 107, 289–344.
6.
GibbonJ., & BalsamP. (1981). Spreading association in time. In LocurtoL. C., TerraceH. S., & GibbonJ. (Eds.), Autoshaping and conditioning theory (pp. 219–253). New York: Academic Press.
7.
GrossbergS., & SchmajukN. A. (1989). Neural dynamics of adaptive timing and temporal discrimination during associative learning. Neural Networks, 2, 79–102.
8.
GuilhardiP., YiL., & ChurchR. M. (2007). A modular theory of learning and performance. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 14, 543–559.
9.
JeffreysH. (1961). Theory of probability (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press, Clarendon Press.
10.
JenningsD., AlonsoE., MondragónE., FranssenM., & BonardiC. (2013). The effect of stimulus distribution form on the acquisition and rate of conditioned responding: Implications for theory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 39, 233–248.
11.
KirkpatrickK. (2002). Packet theory of conditioning and timing. Behavioural Processes, 57, 89–106.
12.
KirkpatrickK. (2014). Interactions of timing and prediction error learning. Behavioural Processes, 101, 135–145.
13.
KirkpatrickK., & ChurchR. M. (2003). Tracking of the expected time to reinforcement in temporal conditioning procedures. Animal Learning and Behavior, 31, 3–21.
14.
MachadoA. (1997). Learning the temporal dynamics of behaviour. Psychological Review, 104, 241–265.
15.
MackintoshN. J. (1975). A theory of attention: Variation in the associability of stimuli with reinforcement. Psychological Review, 82, 276–298.
16.
MatzelL. D., HeldF. P., & MillerR. R. (1988). Information and expression of simultaneous and backward associations: Implications for contiguity theory. Learning and Motivation, 19, 317–344.
17.
MondragónE., GrayJ., AlonsoE., BonardiC., & JenningsD. J. (2014). SSCC TD: A serial and simultaneous configural-cue compound stimuli representation for temporal difference learning. PloSOne, 9, e.0102469.
18.
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.
19.
RescorlaR. A. (1999). Learning about qualitatively different outcomes during a blocking procedure. Animal Learning & Behavior, 27, 140–151.
20.
RescorlaR. A., & WagnerA. R. (1972). A theory of Pavlovian conditioning: The effectiveness of reinforcement and non-reinforcement. In BlackA. H., & ProkasyW. F. (Eds.), Classical conditioning II: Current research and theory (pp. 64–99). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
21.
RouderJ. N., SpeckmanP. L., SunD., MoreyR. D., & IversonG. (2009). Bayesian t-tests for accepting and rejecting the null hypothesis. Psychononic Bulletin & Review, 16, 225–237.
22.
StaddonJ. E. R., & HigaJ. J. (1996). Multiple time scales in simple habituation. Psychological Review, 103, 720–733.
23.
SuttonR. S., & BartoA. G. (1987). A temporal difference model of classical conditioning(Technical report TR 87-509.2). Waltham, MA: GTE Lab.
24.
SuttonR. S., & BartoA. G. (1990). Time derivative models of Pavlovian reinforcement. In GabrielM. R., & MooreJ. W. (Eds.), Learning and computational neuroscience: Foundations of adaptive networks (pp. 497–537). Cambridge (MA): MIT Press.
25.
TathamT. A., & ZurnK. R. (1989). The Med-PC experimental apparatus programming system. Behavioral Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 21, 294–302.
26.
VogelE. H., BrandonS. E., & WagnerA. R. (2003). Stimulus representation in SOP: II. An application to inhibition of delay. Behavioural Processes, 62, 27–48.
27.
WagenmakersE. J. (2007). A practical solution to the pervasive problems of p values. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 779–804.
28.
WagnerA. R. (1981). SOP: A model of automatic memory processing in animals. In MillerN. E. & SpearR. R. (Eds.), Information processes in animals: Memory mechanisms (pp. 95–128). Hillsdale (NJ): Erlbaum.
29.
WardR. D., GallistelC. R., JensenG., RichardsV. L., FairhurstS., & BalsamP. D. (2012). Conditioned stimulus informativeness governs conditioned stimulus−unconditioned stimulus associability. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 38, 217–232.
30.
WilliamsD. A., TravisG. M., & OvermierJ. B. (1986). Within-compound associations modulate the relative effectiveness of differential and Pavlovian conditioning inhibition procedures. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 12, 351–362.
