Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Conditional learning: Switching associations. Are there any types of learning that associative theory cannot explain?

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Conditional learning: Switching associations. Are there any types of learning that associative theory cannot explain?"— Presentation transcript:

1 Conditional learning: Switching associations

2 Are there any types of learning that associative theory cannot explain?

3 "Red Light"

4

5

6 sometimes what the CS is associated with depends on the context... e.g. lexical ambiguity task: ambiguous word e.g. bank subject must define based on semantic context - country walk? going shopping?

7 e.g. Continuous performance test (CPT) A x A y B y B y B x A y B y A y A x B x B y

8 e.g. Continuous performance test (CPT) A x A y B y B y B x A y B y A y A x B x B y must respond to x if preceded by A (not B) i.e. A: x+, y- B: x-

9 e.g. Continuous performance test (CPT) A x A y B y B y B x A y B y A y A x B x B y must respond to x if preceded by A (not B) must respond to y if preceded by B (not A) i.e. A: x+, y- B: x-, y+

10 e.g. Stroop!

11 e.g. Stroop! red yellow green

12 Patients with schizophrenia have been reported to have difficulty on such tasks: Lexical ambiguity e.g., Cohen et al, 1988 Continuous performance test e.g., Cornblatt et al, 1989 Stroop e.g., Wysocki & Sweet, 1985

13 Patients with schizophrenia have been reported to have difficulty on such tasks: Lexical ambiguity e.g., Cohen et al, 1988 Continuous performance test e.g., Cornblatt et al, 1989 Stroop e.g., Wysocki & Sweet, 1985... and in rats performance on such tasks disrupted by amphetamine -- restored by D1/D2 receptor antagonists

14 e.g. Dunn et al., 2005 Instrumental biconditional task: Tone: Left lever --> food Right lever --> no food Click: Left lever --> no food Right lever --> food control 0.5 1.0 1.5 dose of amphetamine

15 So how are these tasks performed? They cannot be the result of simple associations Tone: Left lever --> food Right lever --> no food Click: Left lever --> no food Right lever --> food Tone and click paired with food Left and Right paired with food One interpretation is that they are a type of conditional learning

16 Conditional cues are interesting because they are not just Pavlovian CSs... - occasion setters do not extinguish - get better occasion setting when occasion setter is not a good predictor of the US - Simultaneous: light+tone- food tone- - Serial: light……tone- food tone- so what are they? beyond the association...

17 Outline of lecture: Consider how conditional cues work Consider how conditional cues form Look at what conditional cues can do -- example of therapeutic implications

18 Illustrate with experiment with pigeons (Bonardi 1996) Click: red-->food red -->nothing Flash: green -->food green -->nothing Birds trained with two occasion setters - 10-sec presentations of diffuse cues - followed by 5-sec presentation of a keylight Click red food red

19 Question 1: How do they work? redfood Click ?

20 redfood Click Rescorlas modulation theory (Rescorla, 1985) Whenever a CS is presented, it must activate the US representation to get a conditioned response. If the click is a positive occasion setter, it lowers its activation threshold -- making it easier for the CS to activate.

21 red food Click Hollands and-gate theory (1983) The click acts as an and-gate, allowing activation to flow from the CS to the US, and so elicit a conditioned response.

22 Click: red-->food red -->nothing Flash: green -->food green -->nothing These theories make different predictions about transfer - will the clicker elevate responding to the green keylight?

23 redfood green These theories make different predictions about transfer - will the clicker elevate responding to the green keylight? Holland says no Rescorla says yes Click

24 e.g. (Bonardi 1996) Click: red-->food red -->nothing Flash: green -->food green -->nothing Test: Same:Click: Red Flash : Green Diff:Click: Green Flash : Red

25 Click does elevate responding to green keylight......so is Rescorla right?

26 but this transfer could be generalisation - red/green confusion.... so transfer not conclusive evidence for Rescorla

27 Plus Rescorla predicts click should be equally good with red and green - and it isn't... So can Holland's theory do better?

28 Holland predicts incomplete transfer - so is he right? -- or is this generalisation decrement? Click: red-->food red -->nothing Flash: green -->food green -->nothing Test: Same:Click: Red Flash : Green Diff:Click: Green!!! Flash : Red!!! Novel stimulus combination disrupts responding on Diff trials????

29 (Bonardi 1996) Tests this possibility: Group OS - Click and Flash are occasion setters Click: red-->food red -->nothing Flash: green -->food green -->nothing Test: Same:Click: Red Flash : Green Diff:Click: Green Flash : Red Expect more responding on same than different

30 (Bonardi 1996) Tests this possibility: Group pseudo OS - Click and Flash are NOT occasion setters Click: red-->food red -->food Flash: green -->food green -->food Test: Same:Click: Red Flash : Green Diff:Click: Green Flash : Red If previous result generalisation decrement, predict same here If previous result occasion setting, do not...

31 Group OS Group POS So it's not generalisation decrement... can you think of a reason why you might get more responding on same than on different trials? Wagner is a clue....

32 So occasion setter is specific to the particular CS... (and Rescorla himself has generated evidence against his theory e.g. Rescorla, 1991a; 1991b) - so probably Holland wins... But how about the US? is click more effective with CSs paired with the same US as red? red food Click

33 So occasion setter is specific to the particular CS... (and Rescorla himself has generated evidence against his theory e.g. Rescorla, 1991a; 1991b) - so probably Holland wins... But how about the US? is click more effective with CSs paired with the same US as red? red food Click green different food ?

34 Morell & Davidson, 2002 Light: tone -->suc Light-tone- Group Same US click -->suc or Group Diff USclick -->oil Test: Light toneSame CSSame US Light click (group Same)Diff CSSame US Light click (group Diff)Diff CSDiff US

35 Same CS Diff CS Diff CS Same US Same US Diff US So if you change the US get dramatically reduced effect

36 So occasion setter is specific to the particular US as well... Conclude: evidence supports Holland - acts on association - do get transfer, based on CS-CS and US-US generalisation - if change anything in association, transfer attenuated red food Click green different food

37 Question 2: How do they form? If this is not an association, then where does it come from? redfood Click

38 Where do associations come from? Associative learning explained by Rescorla-Wagner model (among others) Shows certain characteristics - e.g. blocking: A-->food AX --->food X? learning about X poor redfood Click Does occasion setting show blocking?

39 Biographie de Al CAPONE : Ni McGurn, ni Capone ne pensèrent un seul moment que l'assassinat planifié de Bugs Moran serait un événement qui deviendrait notoire pour plusieurs dizaines d'années. Capone se prélassant en Floride, comment pouvait-on le rendre responsable du meurtre d'un contrebandier ? «Machine Gun» McGurn avait le plein contrôle de l'attaque. Il rassembla une équipe de première classe composée gens de l'extérieur : Fred «Killer» Burke en était le chef et était assisté par un tirreur du nom de James Ray. Deux autres membres étaient John scalise et Albert Anselmi, qui avaient été utilisés pour le meurtre de Frankie Yale. Joseph Lolordo faisait aussi partie du groupe, tout comme Harry et Phil Keywell, du Purple Gang de Détroit. Le plan de McGurn était créatif. Un contrebandier invita les membres du gang de Moran à le rencontrer dans un garage afin de leur offrir du whisky de qualité à un prix imbattable. La livraison allait être faite à 10h30, le 14 février. Les hommes de McGurn allaient les attendre vêtus d'uniformes de police et d'imperméables, donnant l'impression qu'un raid allait se dérouler.

40 Blocking of occasion setting (Bonardi 1991) Group Exp Click: noise-->food noise -->nothing Rats: 3-min presentation of a click, with embedded reinforced 5-s noise presentations. Outside click noise nonreinforced Click noise +++++

41 Blocking of occasion setting (Bonardi 1991) Group Exp Click: noise-->food noise -->nothing Group Con Click: noise / food noise -->nothing Click noise +++++

42 Blocking of occasion setting (Bonardi 1991) Group Exp Click: noise-->food noise -->nothing Group Con Click: noise / food noise -->nothing then all Click+Light: noise-->food noise -->nothing test allLight: noise ?? noise??

43 so blocking of occasion setting occurred - learning about L blocked only when Click an occasion setter Group E Group C

44 And just in case you weren't convinced... similar experiments have been performed to demonstrate the parallel effect with S d 's Click response +++++

45 Colwill & Rescorla, 1990 again looks at blocking, but relies on principle of unblocking mismatch between outcomes in two stages attenuates blocking e.g. Dickinson Hall and Mackintosh, 1976 A-->sh AX --->sh X? learning poor A-->sh AX --->sh-sh X? learning restored A-->sh-sh AX --->sh-sh X? learning poor A-->sh-sh AX --->sh X? learning restored

46 Colwill & Rescorla, 1990 noise (Sd)lever chain sucrose foodnoise (Sd)

47 Trained two further S d 's in compound with the noise: Stage 2: Same Different noise (Sd)lever chain sucrose foodnoise (Sd) lever chain sucrose food lever chainsucrose food noise (Sd) light (Sd) flash (Sd)

48 will the Noise block the Flash or the Light ?? Stage 2: Same Different noise (Sd)lever chain sucrose foodnoise (Sd) lever chain sucrose food lever chainsucrose food noise (Sd) light (Sd) flash (Sd)

49 animals learn the same thing about the noise in Stage 1 as they do about about the light in Stage 2 Same ---> blocking but animals learn different things about the noise in Stage 1 and about the flash in Stage 2 Different--> unblocking therefore predict more control by the flash than by the light

50 Flash Light

51 this means occasion setters show blocking it also demonstrates forcibly that occasion setters convey information about CS/US combinations -- if combination changed, learning differs... this is all consistent with Holland's theory

52 What does all this mean? One suggestion -- Hierarchical account: CS-->US association can act as independent associable unit, and occasion setter becomes associated with it (e.g. Bonardi, 1998) associative learning, but not as we know it... is there any evidence that CS-->US association can act as an independent unit? food Click red

53 A x B x C y D y C no shock A shock D ? Fear CR B ? Fear CR Acquired equivalence experiment as a test of this idea Stimuli become more similar if trained in the same way x, y food and no food based on original demonstration by Honey & Hall, 1989

54 y C no shock A shock x A x B x C y D y An explanation in terms of mediated conditioning: An association can form between x and shock even though x is only being thought about

55 y C no shock A shock x y D no shock B shock x A x B x C y D y An explanation in terms of mediated conditioning: now when you present B, it makes you think about shock via x some experiments have tested x and shown this to be true

56 A x+ y- B x+ y- C y+ x- D y+ x- C no shock A shock D ? Fear CR B ? Fear CR Now consider a more complex version (e.g Honey & Watt, 1998) x and y are paired with paired with food or not

57 y + C no shock A shock x + A x+ y- B x+ y- C y+ x- D y+ x- A more complex explanation in terms of mediated conditioning:

58 y + C no shock A shock x + y + D no shock B shock x + A x+ y- B x+ y- C y+ x- D y+ x- A more complex explanation in terms of mediated conditioning: If x+ and y+ associations act as independent associable units, they should act just like x and y in the simple task

59 It works.. but is this really because x+ and y- signal shock?

60 Phase 1 A x+ y- B x+ y- C y+ x- D y+ x- Ax 10s + A,B,C,D visual x, y auditory US food pellet Bonardi & Jennings 2008

61 Phase 1Phase 2 A ---> shock C ---> no shock A x+ y- B x+ y- C y+ x- D y+ x- Test 1 x+ ---> ? y+ ---> ? If x+ signals shock it should evoke more fear than y+...

62 x 10s + x, y auditory US food pellet 10s PQ Suppression ratio Q / (P+Q) Test fear elicited by x+ and y+ Response baseline

63 Effect of trial type p=.020

64 Effect of Trial type p=.03... and y- should evoke more fear than x-

65 Conclude: CS-->US association can act as independent associable unit So is hierarchical account right? One alternative suggested by Honey & Watt 1998 Another by configural theory

66 A x+ y- B x+ y- food A x no foody B Hierarchical account says that A and B both acquire control over the x-->food and y-->food associations A,B are occasion setters x,y are CSs Different things!

67 A x+ y- B x+ y- food A x B Honey and Watt say that A and B and x become linked to a hidden unit that is associated with food (same for A, B, y and no food) A and B and x and y play exactly the same roles! no food A y B

68 A x+ y- B x+ y- food Configural theory says a blend of A and x, and of B and x, becomes associated with food, and blends of Ay and By become associated with no food Normal classical conditioning with blended representations no food A x B x B y food no food A y

69 So which is right?! Jury's out on hierarchical versus Honey & Watt (but we are working on it..) -- issue is whether occasion setters are special or not. There is some evidence on deciding between hierarchical or configural theory -- e.g. Morell & Davidson 2002 Light: tone -->suc Light- tone- Group Same US click -->suc Group Diff USclick -->oil Test Light/tone Light/click(sameUS) Light/click(diff US) Same CS Diff CS Diff CS Same USSame USDiff US

70 food Light tone Light click ? Light click Train Testsame CS same US diff CS same US diff CS diff US Light tone ? ?

71 food Light tone Light click ? Light click Train Testsame CS same US diff CS same US diff CS diff US Light tone ? ? Configural theory says responding at test depends on similarity of training and test configures but these do not change with identity of US so last two conditions will be the same

72 Train Testsame CS same US diff CS same US diff CS diff US..but what if identity of US encoded in configure? then configural theory could explain these results -- Light click suc ? Light click oil ? food Light tone suc ? Light tone suc now configures more different if US changes

73 But how about this - work with rats not yet published... Jewel: click-->suc click--> Jewel--> tone --> suc buzz --> oil Test Jeweltone Jewel buzz Jewel click suc this part like Morell and Davidson

74 same feature, different target CS configural theory predicts less responding when USs differ Jewel: click-->suc tone --> suc buzz --> oil Test Jeweltone Jewel buzz suc Jewel click suc Jewel tone suc Jewel buzz oil

75 hierarchical theory predicts the same, because the training and test associations are more different when USs differ Jewel: click-->suc tone --> suc buzz --> oil Test Jeweltone Jewel buzz

76 responding higher on same than on different trials both configural and hierarchical theory can explain these results

77 But how about doing converse... same target CS different "occasion setter" (actually just a CS) Jewel: click-->suc click--> Jewel--> dark... --> suc flash... --> oil Test dark click flash click

78 test compounds still differ by one or two components so configural theory predicts exactly the same as before Jewel: click-->suc dark... --> suc flash... --> oil Test dark click flash click suc Jewel click suc dark click suc flash click oil

79 but hierarchical theory does not predict anything because test compounds do not include occasion setters Jewel: click-->suc dark... --> suc flash... --> oil Test dark click flash click

80 responding nonsignificantly higher on different trials - configural theory predicted the opposite result

81 Conclude: Some evidence against configural theory But no discrimination yet between hierarchical account and Honey & Watt A hot topic! Are occasion setters special or not?

82 Further questions: what else can occasion setters do? when a CS signals a US animals learn this relation and respond they also learn when the US will be presented - timing Tone (20 sec) --> food

83 Can occasion setters tell the rat when the US will occur? Short trials: Click: Light (6)+ Noise: Dark (6+) Long trials: Click: Dark (30)+ Noise: Light (30+)

84 Can occasion setters tell the rat when the US will occur? Short trials: Click: Light (6)+ Noise: Dark (6+) Long trials: Click: Dark (30)+ Noise: Light (30+)

85 Bonardi & Jennings 2007

86 Then give probe trials - present Light and Dark for 90 seconds to look for the point of maximum responding Short trials: Click: Light (6)+ Noise: Dark (6+) Long trials: Click: Dark (30)+ Noise: Light (30+) Expect peak responding to be at 6s on short trials and 30s on long trials

87

88 Can occasion setters tell the rat when the US will occur? Apparently yes!

89 Conditional learning and Drug tolerance (Ramos et al., 2002) Ethanol induces hypothermia, to which tolerance develops and this conditions to other cues that are present Investigated effect of extinguishing cues. Critical fact: CSs extinguish when presented alone occasion setters do not Flash (injection -->ethanol) injection -->saline Tolerance conditions to Flash

90 Flash (injection -->ethanol) injection -->saline When Flash and injection simultaneous (not good for occasion setting) extinction of Flash removed its tolerance effects Flash (injection -->ethanol) injection -->saline When Flash and injection serial (good for occasion setting) extinction of Flash had no effect

91 So understanding occasion setting gives important information on the development of tolerance in drug addiction...

92 References Bonardi, C. (1991). Blocking of occasion setting in feature-positive discriminations. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 43B, 431-448. Bonardi, C. (1996). Transfer of occasion setting: The role of generalization decrement. Animal Learning and Behavior, 24, 277-289. Bonardi, C. (1998). Conditional learning: An associative analysis. In P.C. Holland and N.A. Schmajuk (Eds.) Associative learning and cognition in animals: Occasion setting. Washington, D.C.:APA Bonardi, C., & Jennings, D. (2007). Occasion setting of timing behaviour. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 33, 339-348. Bonardi, C., & Jennings, D. (2008). Learning about associations: Evidence for a hierarchical account of occasion setting. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, in press. Cohen RM, Semple, WE, Gross, M, Mordahl, TE, Holcomb, HH, Dowling, MS, & Pickar, D (1988) The effect of neuroleptics on dysfunction in a prefrontal substrate of sustained attention in schizophrenia. Life Sciences, 43, 1141-1150.

93 Cornblatt, BA, Lenzenweger, MF, Erlenmeyer,-Kimling, L (1989). A continuous performance tist, idential pairs version. ll Contrasting attentional profiles in schizophrenic and depressed patients. Psychiatry Research, 29, 65-85. Colwill, R.M., & Rescorla, R.A. (1990). Evidence for the hierarchical structure of instrumental learning. Animal Learning and Behavior, 18, 71-82. Dickinson, A, Hall, G, & Mackintosh, NJ (1976). Surprise and the attenuation of blocking. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 2, 313-322. Dunn, M., Futter, D., Bonardi, C., & Killcross, A.S. (2005). Attenuation of D-amphetamine-induced disruption of conditional discrimination performance by alpha-flupenthixol. Psychopharmacology, 177, 296-306. Holland, P.C. (1983). Occasion setting in Pavlovian feature-positive discriminations. In M.L.Commons, R.J. Herrnstein & A.R Wagner (Eds.) Quantitative analyses of behavior: Discrimination Processes (Vol. 4: pp.183-206). New York: Ballinger. Honey, R.C., & Hall, G. (1989). Acquired equivalence and distinctiveness of cues. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 15, 338-346.

94 Honey, RC, & Watt, A. (1998). Acquired relational equivalence: Implications for the nature o associative structures. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 24, 325-334. Morell, J.V., & Davidson, T.L. (2002). Transfer across unconditioned stimuli in serial feature discrimination training. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 28, 83- 96. Ramos, BMC, Siegel, S, & Bueno, JLO (2002). Occasion setting and drug tolerance. Integrative Physiological and Behavioral Science, 37, 165-177. Rescorla, R.A. (1985). Conditioned inhibition and facilitation. In R.R..Miller & N.E.Spear (Eds.) Information Processing in animals: Conditioned inhibition. (pp.299-326). Hillsdale N.J. Erlbaum. Rescorla, R.A. (1991a). Combinations of modulators trained with the same and different target stimuli. Animal Learning and Behavior, 19, 355-360. Rescorla, R.A. (1991b). Transfer of inhibition and facilitation mediated by the original target stimulus Animal Learning and Behavior, 9, 293-303. Swartzentruber, D. (1995). Modulatory mechanisms in Pavlovian conditioning. Animal Learning and Behavior, 23, 123-143. Wysocki, MS, & Sweet, JJ (1985). Identification of brain damaged schizophrenic, and normal medical patients using a brief neuropsychological screening battery. International Journal of Clinical Neuropsychology, 7, 40-49.


Download ppt "Conditional learning: Switching associations. Are there any types of learning that associative theory cannot explain?"

Similar presentations


Ads by Google