1. Classical Conditioning: Mechanisms The general outline for this section: I. What makes for an effective CS and/or US? II. What is learned in classical conditioning? III. Blocking and surprisingness IV. Formal Models of Learning

2. I. What makes for an effective CS and/or US? A. Novelty CS-preexposure effect (or, latent inhibition) Various explanations, depending on who you talk to B. Intensity C. Salience D. Relevence Remember Garcia’s studies?

3. Here’s a more elaborate version of it: Phase 1 Group 1 Group 2 Bright/noisy/tasty water Phase 2Test SHOCK X-RAY Taste? A/V? Taste? A/V? X   X Neither CS nor US salience could account for the idiosyncratic results obtained…. Flies in the face of the “arbitrariness” of learning associations...

4. CS/US distinctions : The concept of “biological strength” Pavlov was the first to propose a distinction between CS’s and US’s e.g.: a light or tone does not initially possess much biological strength, whereas food or shock does Low Biological Strength = CS’s; High = US’s Implications of Pavlov’s notion: 1) Higher-order conditioning -once a CS--US association is formed, the CS now has more biological strength 2) Strong—weak ordering should result in no learning e.g.: food--light Also: higher strength of the US “energizes” learning

5. Problems with Pavlov’s notion of biological strength: 1) CS-preexposure effect -since no US, no learning should take place, according to Pavlov 2) Sensory Preconditioning -learning does appear to occur with two “weak” stimuli e.g.: light + tonetone + foodlight? (notice that it is really higher-order conditioning in reverse) So, while the existence of stimuli possessing biological strength is not debatable, where it fits into the big picture of how learning takes place is still in question

6. representation S-S S-R The Evidence: -Browne (1976): vicarious learning -devaluation studies (e.g. Rescorla, 1973) CS US representation Response representation II. What is learned in classical conditioning? (representations)

7. A typical example of a devaluation study (from Rescorla, 1973): Phase 1Phase 2Test E group C group Light--loud noise Habituate noise Don’t habituate Suppression to light? More suppression in C group than in E group Suppression to light? Serves as a test between S-S, S-R: if devaluation occurs, S-S supported representation S-S S-R CS US representation Response representation Devalued response to US

8. More devaluation studies: Phase 1Phase 2Test gp. Etone + food gp. C food + rotate rotate Tone? Found evidence of devaluation: rotation contingent on food showed less activity than uncorrelated rotation E C Phase 1Phase 2Phase 3Test Red--food Green--Red Red--000 Evidence of devaluation (S-S): E-group pecks less than C group 000 Green? Devaluation not restricted to rats, nor to illness as the devaluing technique

9. However, not all devaluation studies support an S-S representation: ECEC Phase 1Phase 2Phase 3Test Light + food Tone + Light food + rotate rotate Tone? No devaluation here: nonsignificant differences between the two groups ECEC Phase 1Phase 2Phase 3Test Light + shock Tone + Light Light----000 000 Tone? Again, no devaluation; tone is equally suppressive for the two groups

10. So, sometimes devaluation does occur (supporting S-S), sometimes it does not (supporting S-R) WHY?!?! Potential explanation: Konorski’s distinction Stimuli can be internally represented in more than one way: 1) Sensory properties 2) Affective/Motivational properties ---- consummatory response ---- preparatory response light---food = a sensory code (“food!”), tone---light = a motivational code (“something good”) If you devalue the food, it will not change the representation pointed at by the tone. (the light means different things in the two cases)

11. Reasons S-S is considered correct: 1) Konorski’s ideas provide an explanation for why devaluation did not occur, but leave intact the idea of an S-S representation taking place 2) S-R proponents have no good explanation for when devaluation studies work! 3) S-R “support” = no devaluation. In other words, it is asserting the null hypothesis! 4) Browne’s vicarious learning study

12. Conclusions: S-R “support” is really a lack of evidence at all, S-R cannot explain Browne, nor when devaluation works S-S can explain Browne, when devaluation works, and even when it doesn’t work (thanks to Konorski) So, it appears S-S representations are the clear winners