Similarity and discrimination in human Pavlovian conditioning.
Saved in:
| Title: | Similarity and discrimination in human Pavlovian conditioning. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Kinder, Annette (AUTHOR), Lachnit, Harald (AUTHOR) |
| Source: | Psychophysiology. Mar2003, Vol. 40 Issue 2, p226-234. 9p. |
| Subjects: | Classical conditioning, Eyelid conditioning, Patterning therapy, Conditioned response, Learning |
| Abstract: | We report three Pavlovian eyelid conditioning experiments with humans, designed to experimentally decide between elemental and configural learning theories. We used two different designs originally proposed by Redhead and Pearce (1995). In Experiments 1 and 2, three stimulus elements, A, B, and C, were presented in all possible combinations. All patterns were reinforced except for pattern ABC (A/B/C +, AB/AC/BC +, ABC -). According to elemental learning theories, response proportions n A/B/C + trials should be smaller than n AB/AC/BC+ trials, whereas configural learning theory makes the opposite prediction. The results confirmed neither prediction. In Experiment 3, the A/B/C + , AB/AC/BC+, and ABC trials were interspersed by D/E/F-, DE/DF/EF-, DEF+ trials. Again, neither prediction was confirmed. We suggest a modification of configural learning theory as a possible explanation four results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of Psychophysiology is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | We report three Pavlovian eyelid conditioning experiments with humans, designed to experimentally decide between elemental and configural learning theories. We used two different designs originally proposed by Redhead and Pearce (1995). In Experiments 1 and 2, three stimulus elements, A, B, and C, were presented in all possible combinations. All patterns were reinforced except for pattern ABC (A/B/C +, AB/AC/BC +, ABC -). According to elemental learning theories, response proportions n A/B/C + trials should be smaller than n AB/AC/BC+ trials, whereas configural learning theory makes the opposite prediction. The results confirmed neither prediction. In Experiment 3, the A/B/C + , AB/AC/BC+, and ABC trials were interspersed by D/E/F-, DE/DF/EF-, DEF+ trials. Again, neither prediction was confirmed. We suggest a modification of configural learning theory as a possible explanation four results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 00485772 |
| DOI: | 10.1111/1469-8986.00024 |
