×
Log in to StudySoup
Get Full Access to KSU - Study Guide - Final
Join StudySoup for FREE
Get Full Access to KSU - Study Guide - Final

Already have an account? Login here
×
Reset your password

KSU / Engineering / PSY 41043 / What is the meaning of similarities to appetitive conditioning?

What is the meaning of similarities to appetitive conditioning?

What is the meaning of similarities to appetitive conditioning?

Description

Basic Learning Final Exam Study Guide


What is the meaning of similarities to appetitive conditioning?



Aversively motivated learning

Escape: Situations in which subjects learn an instrumental response to escape from or terminate  a conditioned response to escape from or terminate a conditioned stimulus that elicits fear.  

• Motivating stimuli: An unpleasant stimulus is present, you do something to get rid of it • Example with rat: Shock the floor, stays on until the rat presses the lever. In such a small  compartment, rat finally presses the lever and the shocks stop. After a couple trials, when  the shock starts, the rat quickly presses the lever.

• Similarities to Appetitive Conditioning: unpleasant stimulus is present, escape response:  pressing lever to get rid of shock. The bigger the reward, the bigger the shock, the faster  the learning.


What is the meaning of delayed offset?



• Delayed offset: when reward is delayed for 10 seconds after, learning does not occur or is  slow to occur

Avoidance: differs from escape because the subject makes a response that prevents/precludes the  unpleasant stimulus We also discuss several other topics like What copies dna in the process of transcription?

• Example: if you have enough money and fly to Florida in September because come  November, December there’s going to be snow, you have made an avoidance response.  You did not wait for the snow to come. Don't forget about the age old question of What refers to the situation where the consumers shop offline to get a feel of the product then buy the product online at a cheaper price?

• **Example: If a rat made 100 avoidance trials, how many shocks did it get during those  trials? Answer: 0. Once it learns the avoidance, it will never get shocked again. • Value: you prevented the stressful event from occurring If you want to learn more check out Pdcaas means what?

• Avoidance response comes from escape response first, after a while you get an  anticipatory response. No longer an escape.


What is the meaning of shuttle avoidance?



• Discriminative avoidance

o Shuttle avoidance: two chambers, no door between them, the rat can go back and  forth. Called shuttle avoidance because after the tone comes on, shock comes, it  goes from one side to the other. Like a shuttle train going back and forth. Much  harder for rats to learn because there’s no one place that’s always safe.  

▪ 2 types of tasks for shuttle avoidance: Two-way avoidance, where they go  back and forth to avoid shocks and One-way avoidance just moves from  If you want to learn more check out What is the difference between highly developed and less developed countries?

one side the other, not back and forth.

▪ Scalding shower example: when the toilet gets flushed, all the cold water  goes away so you get burned by the shower water, so you jump out of the  water; escape response. You learn that when your roommate flushes the  Don't forget about the age old question of What is the meaning of phospholipid monolayers?

toilet, you get out of the water before it burns you.

o Problems

▪ Anxiety disorder where fear motivates avoidance of cues. Those cues may  not be dangerous anymore; PTSD. That noise can trigger fear. Can be very  persistent, doesn’t go away.  

▪ Stimulus generalization of avoidance: person bitten by a snake comes to  fear/avoid the rope.Don't forget about the age old question of Speciation means what?

• Terminology: Pavlovian

o Based on theoretical interpretation

o Brogden’s study

▪ Guinea pigs on a running wheel. Had one group that had a tone followed  by a brief shock, which elicited a running response. After tone, they  

learned to run before the shock. The other group, partial reinforcement  group, tone is followed by shock unless guinea pig ran during the tone. It  didn’t get a shock and the tone went off. Partial reinforcement because  when tone and shock are paired, they are feared 100%, if you pair them  part of the time, it is a partial reinforcement.

▪ When the animal can control the absence of the shock, it became an  avoidance. Learn much more quickly. Therefore, it is not strictly  

Pavlovian.  

o Explanations

▪ Basic Problem: Absence as reward

• Absence of a shock can be rewarding

▪ Mowrer’s 2-process model to account for avoidance response

• 1. Pavlonian conditioning of fear

o First few trials, the rat has no idea what is coming. Tone  

paired with shock. CS(warning signal) + UCS.

• 2. Instrumental fear reduction

o Accidentally run in advance of shock occurring, avoidance  

response and tone turns off. When tone turns off, the fear  

turns off as well. Source of the reward.

o Escaping from the fear produced by the signal. When they  

do that, they get rid of the signal, which gets rid of the fear. 

▪ Application to Freud’s theory

• Repression as avoidance

o Unconscious suppression 

o Neal Miller: evidence that you can respond to things  

without experiencing or knowing it.  

o Priming: present brief words on screen to college students,  

almost can’t be recognized. A few dirty words added.  

Anxiety changes the skin conductors. They measured the  

skin conductors, the skin conductors changed when the  

dirty words appeared. They were able to recognize  

something.

o Evidence for two-process model

1. Importance of CS offset (Kamin’s study)

▪ Delay should impair avoidance learning (delay reinforcement)

▪ Twins reared apart: share the same genetic makeup. Twins were  

reared around the corner from each other. Could be genetic or  

environment. Weakened the case.

▪ Study with Richard Solomon. If the source of reinforcement is so  important and if we delay offset, it should impair learning. The  

quicker the termination of the signal, the faster the avoidance  

learning.

2. Manipulation of Pavlovian Process

▪ Solomon and Turner

o Transfer of control experiment

▪ Phase 1: animals were trained to make avoidance of  

light. Light comes on, 5 seconds later shock.  

Subjects learn to make avoidance response

▪ Phase 2: Take same subjects, put in same situation,  

but they can’t escape. Tone 1: always followed by  

brief shock. Tone 2: discrimination learning. Never  

followed by shock.  

▪ In test phase, does not give shock. Gives either tone  

1 or tone 2. They avoid to the tone that had been  

paired with shock and not the tone that was not  

paired with shock. Transfer of control. They have  

learned that when you get fearful, you make  

avoidance response. They are not learning the tone  

but the light. They add the tone, so they are fearful  

of both light and tone. You’ve transferred/extended  

control of the avoidance response.

3. Fear as acquired drive

▪ Rats were given Pavlovian fear conditioning to a signal. Tone  comes on followed by shock. 2nd phase of this study, no more  

shock. Turn on tone, and now there’s a doorway and no more  

shocks. If they are afraid of the tone, is it a motivator? Yes, they  learn to turn off the tone. Learned fear serves the motivated  

response. The removal of the fear serves as a source of  

reinforcement.

▪ Frustration was an unpleasant stimulus. Tone was paired  

repeatedly with no food. Will they do something to turn off tone  that is paired with absence of food? Frustration tone serves as  

motivator.

4. Monitoring fear during avoidance

▪ Circularity: They are avoiding because they are afraid, how do we  now they’re afraid? Because they are avoiding.

▪ Study: Independent test of fear to break circularity. Train rats to  bar press for food. Avoidance training to tone. Takes them out.  

Presents tone while bar pressing. If they are afraid, they will  

suppress bar pressing, which they did. If they were avoiding, they  also suppress bar pressing. There are two processes, activation of  fear and response of getting rid of the signal.

o Challenges for two-process view

▪ Sidman’s free operant paradigm

• No trials. Sidman avoidance. Train rats to make avoidance  

response without signal. 2 intervals: Every ten second delivers a  

brief shock. Subjects needs to learn to make response during the  

interval and the response will postpone shock. Shocks are  

scheduled. If rats make a response during the interval, it cancels  

the next set of scheduled shock. Without making response, shock  

come back. If subject keeps responding, it will cancel all future  

shocks. Avoidance learning.

• Time is a signal because every ten seconds there is a shock.  

• Takes hours to learn where regular avoidance is learned in about  

15 minutes

▪ Other avoidance issues 

Robert Bolles

o Species specific defense responses (SSDR’s): if the response the subject makes  when it’s frightened is compatible with avoidance response, it will learn quickly  and easily. If it’s not compatible, it is difficult to learn.

▪ Ex: rats do not easily learn to make bar press to avoid. Can learn to escape  with bar press but not to avoid. 3 behaviors: flea, freeze, fight. Pressing a

lever is not one of those behaviors of fear.  

▪ Compatibility of the response that’s required and the outcome.

Susan Mineka

o Social transmission of fear

▪ Rhesus monkeys: monkeys that came from the wild were all afraid of  snakes. Assumption: genetic trait that made them afraid of snakes.  

Monkeys reared in the lab were not afraid of snakes. Measure: Put an  

empty aquarium in front of monkey. On the other side of aquarium, they  

offer treat. Now there is a snake in aquarium, the wild monkeys go crazy,  lab monkeys reach out for the treat and ignore the snake. Is fear acquired?  Use wild monkey as a model. The lab monkey sees the wild monkey go  

wild and they too go wild. Social learning.

Learned Helplessness (prior shock effect): what happens when you remove the relationship of  response and outcome

• Does pre-shock facilitate avoidance? The learning of avoidance was impaired rather than  facilitated.  

o Pre-shocks for seconds: no escape. Stressful shocks impair their learning. o Is it previous shock effect or lack of control? Transfers negatively, they don’t  escape or avoid when they have the chance.  

▪ Tripartite design (3-part design)

• Group 1: no shocks, disregard. Phase 1: shock comes, one set of  

animals (group2) can escape, shock continues until they escape.

Shock comes for group 3: yoked animals, there is nothing they can  do to stop the shock, the escaped animal controls when the shock  comes on. Phase 2: everybody can escape and avoid. The group  that was yoked was not fine, as if they had learned in the first  phase, they can’t control the stimulus. Learned to be helpless when  they could do something. Negative transfer to 2nd task.  

▪ Alternative explanations

• Shock sensitization? No

• Competing motor response 

o Test: deliberately highly incompatible, train competing  response

▪ No impairment

o Learned some other response that’s not the appropriate one.  Gets in the way of 2nd task

o Learned to make escape response by standing facing the  wrong way, shuts off shock. After training, the escape and  

avoid rather than standing facing the wrong way. They  

have learned to control the shock. When one doesn’t work,  they try something else.

▪ Immunization: most successful way form of medical treatment • Could we immunize animals so that they’re protected?

• If they learned once in their lifetime that they can do something to  prevent unpleasant event, will it carry over?  

• 10 escape trials. Now getting inescapable shock because the prior  learning protects them and they’re not helpless. Learned to cope.  Do not show learned helplessness.

▪ Generality across species

• Studies with humans

o College students in inescapable trial, show learned  

helplessness. They do not learn as quickly as they ought to.  Despite past experiences. Because situation is different to  

what college students would ordinarily experience.

o Health/therapy relate implications

▪ Depression

▪ Ulcer formation

• Is development of ulcers because of shock  

stress? No, it must be a psychological  

variable (control).

• Learned helplessness group developed more  

tumors.

▪ Appetitive analog learned laziness

• “Spoiling”

▪ Learned helplessness in spinal cord (Robin Joynes)

• If spinal cord is severed, there is no regeneration.

• Spinal reflexes (no brain): there is not connection from the brain to  

the limb.  

o Noxious stimuli (nociception)

▪ No pain

▪ Something will cause a spinal reaction but is not  

pain. They can learn to avoid by keeping leg lifted.

▪ Spinal cord has motor programs that are  

independent of the brain. Those paralyzed can do  

some walking behaviors. They may be able to walk.

• Applications in humans

o Christopher Reeves (Superman): went horseback riding.  

Broke his spinal cord. Quadriplegic: all four limbs were  

bad. He died young from the spinal injury.

Avoidance and Extinction

• Not partial reinforcement

• Approaches to therapy

o Dog injury to leg: twisted his left rear leg. Not good for a big dog lead to arthritis.  Fix it with surgery. Dog still limping because he learned avoidance response  (putting leg down pain), put something unpleasant on the right paw, eventually  forces him to use left rear leg. Comes around and starts using it again.  

o Flooding (response prevention, blocking): if you prevent avoidance response from  occurring, then allowed it to occur again, you can extinguish it quickly. Like  response prevention.

▪ Facilitative extinction

• Trained a rat to run down a pathway. No shocks in gold box  

(avoidance response), how many avoidance responses will they  

make? Couple hundred. Other group introduce blocking (blocking  

sidewalks). After you open the door, it reduces the avoidance  

responses.

o Residual fear and implications

▪ Animals were still afraid although they stopped avoiding

▪ Might generate other inappropriate behaviors

Punishment

• Definition: delivery of an unpleasant stimulus contingent upon response/behavior. o Suppresses behavior.

o eg, Bruxism: grinding teeth when asleep.  

▪ Sensing device in their mouth to determine the pressure of teeth grinding.  They got a mild shock when they grinded their teeth and eventually  

stopped the grinding.

• Are effects transient?

o Thorndike; Skinner: punishment only has a temporary suppressant.

▪ The punishments that were used were mild. With more severe punishment,  the suppression is more permanent.  

• Variables that influence

1. Intensity

i. Initial high level

a. Harder to suppress

ii. Maintain with weaker level

2. Strength of response to suppress

i. How well learned and how well practiced it is

3. Motivational level

i. Inherently conflict situation

ii. Cocaine (Individual difference): Group 1: rats have little cocaine, group 2:  moderate cocaine, group 3: rats are hooked. Punishment for seeking  

cocaine. Not very effective to those hooked, they will take the punishment.  Any rewarding substance that’s being punished, will resolve in some  

animals being suppressed and others not.

4. Schedule of punishment

5. Delay of punishment

6. Gradual introduction of punishment (shock)

i. Ex, Rats were trained to run down alley, group 1: continues to run fast to  get to food, group 2: severe punishment suddenly, responding is  

suppresses quickly. Group 3: gradually increasing punishment, give them  the severe punishment, we don’t see change. They have learned to put up  with the punishment. Lost your ability of control with punishment.

ii. Impairs effectiveness

iii. Abused children

a. The parents had started off with mild punishment, behavior slowed  down but continued, then were applying sever punishment. They  

had lost control by introducing punishment gradually. Parents get  

in trouble. Parents were ashamed.

• Interpretation of punishment

o As passive avoidance

▪ There's only one thing that a subject must not do

o Refrain from acts

o Ex: invisible fence

▪ Dog can do whatever it wants except go past the invisible fence

▪ Approach tendency is very high, if there is a rabbit on the other side of the  fence, it is tempting. The punishment loses to the approach and they go  across. Once they go across, they can’t come back because the fence  

doesn’t care which side you’re coming from, the dog will get the shock if  they try to come back.  

▪ Strategy for birds near swimming pool

• Wires used for fly fishing over a swimming pool. It was a form of  

passive avoidance; the bird would smack into the wires and get a  

slight shock and learned to stay away from the pool

o Two-process theory

▪ Response linked stimuli elicit fear

• Stimulus is produced by the response itself

• Ex: rat bar pressing for food and being punished for bar pressing.  

The act of bar pressing produces feedback. That response linked  

stimuli becomes associated with the shock and therefore become  

fear of eliciting. Making the response elicit fear. Stopping the  

response will reduce fear.

▪ Termination of response gets strengthened because of fear being reduced • Non-suppressive effects of function

o Vicious circle effect: punishing an avoidance response can paradoxically lead to  an increase in the avoidance response

▪ Ex: Rate were trained to run down an alley, tone comes on, they learn five  seconds later the shock comes on. After ten trials the rats don’t wait for  the shock, they avoid it. How can we get the rat to stop avoiding?  

• Group punished for avoiding. Makes them avoid even more

o Bed wetting is often related to anxiety. It would be  

counterproductive to punish for bed wetting.

o The reason punishment doesn’t work is because it makes  

them more afraid.

o Punishment becomes a discriminative cue for a reward

▪ Punishment is arranged where the punishment predicts something good • A rat is punished and then given a shot of cocaine, it undermines  

the punishment

• Suzy like Handle’s ice cream but she never gets to go there unless  

she was punished. We are pairing the punishment and reward.

• Discriminative cues for when the punishment will occur

o Rat is bar pressing for food. When tone is on for 30  

seconds, bar presses produce food but also produce  

punishment. Punishment is strong enough to make the rat  

not bar press

o Suzy uses foul language at school. They tell her parents and  

she is punished. Suzy stops swearing at home but still  

swears at school because she knows that at the school, she  

is able to swear without being punished right after. For the  

moment, she can get away with it.

• Ethical considerations

1. Power differential

i. Punishment is given by the person in power

ii. Guards over prisoners, parents over children, etc.

iii. It can be abused. Prison situations power is abused. Bodily punishments  are no longer used in school because it could turn into abuse.

iv. Sometimes the punisher is getting pleasure from punishing

2. Behavior therapy

i. Autistic children can be self-destructive. When they are self-destructive,  you don’t want that to continue. There are three ways to stop it: restrain  

them, give them drugs, or punish them. Punishment is more affective, it  

will suppress the response.

Animal Cognition: Memory

• Definition: an inference of behavior from performance.

• Theoretical construct (interference) of animal cognition

o Importance of anthropomorphism

▪ Giving animals human traits like being sad, happy, etc.

Memory

• Processes

• Comparing memory to learning

o Memory and learning are not the same thing. They are different processes.  o Operational and functional differences

▪ Operational differences are obvious; one is learning, one is remembering ▪ Functional differences: learning and memory does not respond the same  way

• Not affected the same way by same variables

• If you try to learn something in massed trials, you can learn it  

faster than if the trails are widely spaced. Massed learning is faster  

learning, but spaced learning has more retention.

• Retrieval focus

o Types of tests for memory (3R’s)

▪ Recall: identify and describe, vicious circle effect

▪ Recognition: multiple choice, true/false, easier than recall

▪ Relearn: if you have learned something before, now you have forgotten it,  you can relearn it faster than when you start from scratch.

• Short term/working memory in humans

o Acquire something and retain it for a brief period of time

o Capacity and duration

▪ Capacity: 7(+-2)

▪ Peterson’s Paradigm

• Present college students with a trigram (3 letters), then asked in  

various intervals. To prevent from rehearsing, as soon as trigram  

was flashed, they count back out loud to prevent from cheating.  

The duration of short-term memory is perceived accurately

because those tested right after word is shown they got it 100%,  

when they were tested 30 seconds later, it was harder for them.  

▪ Animal research working vs reference memory

• Hunter’s task for working memory

o Delay of response test: trained dog. 3 locations. A light is  

on at one location where food is. Turn the light off and wait  

5 seconds. Dog has memory up to a minute to remember  

where the light was. Dog still pointing that way, not really  

memory. Did another experiment and turns it around and  

upside down, it can still be successful.

• Delayed matching to sample (DMTS)

o Trained pigeons. 3 disks. The middle is target stimulus.  

They have to pick the matching one. Memory: have to  

respond best to make sure they’re paying attention. Now  

must pick the right one to move on to the next phase.

o In DMTS and schizophrenia

▪ Trace decay

• The longer the sample was present, the stronger the trait. A  

stronger trait is presented by longer presentation time

• Vary duration of sample and retention interval (D. Grant)

• Stronger trace? Yes, interference from previous trials

▪ General vs. Specific rules learned

• Test with novel stimuli

o Chimps: matching rule

o Pigeons: “same as” if trials have unique training

▪ Symbolic (conditional) DMTS

• Sample cues different from test stimulus

• Ex: if red, vertical lines are correct, if blue, horizontal lines are  correct

• Accuracy not based on fading physical representation (like red to  pink)

o Spatial memory in radial (Olton) maze

▪ Behavioral biology

• Foraging in nature (birds and nectar)

• Multiple arms (8) all baited. Game: don’t return to empty arm • Rats: very successful  

o Rule out odor trail or algorithms (rules)

o How do they succeed? Cues outside of maze

▪ If using odor cues, successful

▪ If you take them out, spin (rotate) the maze, put  

back in, not successful

▪ Format/objective of maze

• Duration of memory?

o Interrupt after half of choices (4 out of 8)

o Return after various intervals

o Morris water maze

▪ Kiddie wading pool with platform (hidden underwater or visible) escape  from water (even though good swimmers-lazy)

▪ Objective: find the hidden platform

▪ 2 methods of solving: Different starting points or train from same place  (test from different place)

• Importance of cognitive maps

o Extra maze cues

o Possible navigational cues

o Memory mechanisms

▪ Issue of Stimulus coding

• Abstracting of information  

▪ Prospective vs Retrospective coding

• 2 ways to know

1. Test strategies by varying memory load

2. “Save room for dessert” effect

o Rehearsal and Retention

▪ Holding info in working memory

• Phone number; auditory rehearsal

▪ Directed forgetting in humans and pigeons

• Bjork studies

o F-cue: “Forget cue” after items

▪ Discriminate signal for no test

o Long term memory  

▪ Capacity and duration

• Unlimited capacity, indefinite duration

▪ Methodological issues in studying

• Equal levels of learning

o Famous flawed study fast vs slow learners

• Recovery of memory

o Not due to new learning

o Sources of forgetting (2 main)

▪ Meaning of forget: does not imply lost from storage, often retrieval failure ▪ Interference (2 types)

• Proactive (earlier memories)

o A=target

o You first learn material B then material A, you will  

remember material A because nothing is learned after  

material A

o Same parking lot, different parking spots, after 20, 30 times  

you don’t remember where you parked

o Underwood study

▪ Used students

▪ Tasks: how many prior things students learned  

▪ The more students learned recently, the poorer  

memory

▪ 15% recall

• Retroactive (later, after target memories)

o Competing memories = interference

o A=target

o Learned material A then something else then learn material  B

o Paired associate learning

▪ Stimulus-response

▪ Ex: cup-hat, dog-book. Then cup-tree, dog-clock

▪ What was learned first? Recall good, recognition  

bad

▪ Ex: stimulus: face. Response: name

o Overcome interference: overlearning the material

▪ Context change (background)

• Change of those background cues can impair the recall or retention  of the task

• Shift removes retrieval cues

o Retrieval cues are less important if answers are in front of  you

• Scuba diving study

o Expert divers learned words then tested. How do they  

learn? Wet vs Dry. Those that have context change, they  

didn’t do so well. If context matched, they were fine.

• Classroom as context (Smith)

o Familiarized the people in the class, change of context  

doesn’t really matter

o Better on recall in same classroom

• Crib liners for infants (Rovee-Collier)

o Leg kicking; crib liner (context)

o Context switch is not due to performance, it impaired the  memory

• Avoidance tasks with rats

o change context, poor recall

▪ Applications

• Cognitive interview

o Reinstate context in which a person witnessed an important  event

o Ex: witnessed a liquor store hold up, then interviewed by  police. To try to enhance memory, how were you feeling?

What was the weather like? All context cues allow for  

context reinstatement for witness.

o Retrieval processes

▪ Priming and Reactivation experiments

• Various reminder cues lead to memory recovery

o Ex: CS alone, UCS alone, or just context

• Implicates retrieval (not storage loss)

o Ex: Pilot and emergency materials

▪ You want them to study and know the emergency  

material as much as possible  

o Memory dysfunctions

▪ Anterograde amnesia

• Forgetting events after trauma to brain

• Failure to establish new memory

▪ Retrograde amnesia (and role of retrieval processes)

• Forgetting of events prior to CNS trauma

• Time-dependent (“window” of vulnerability)

▪ Lab studies

• Rats-retrograde amnesia

o Electroconvulsive shock

o If shock is immediate, immediate amnesia and vice versa

• McGaugh Consolidation model

o Consolidation interrupted by agent

o Hebb’s book: neural activities that continues (like a Gong)

▪ Reverberating circuits idea

▪ Something destructive = memory doesn’t get  

established (cement dry)

▪ Alternative view: retrieval impairment

• Spontaneous recovery? No

• Some evidence in humans, problematic

• Ex: mugged, lost consciousness, had retrograde amnesia. As time  went by, his memory started to come back slowly. Old memory is  relearned by their friends telling them about the things that  

happened

▪ State dependency

• Amnesia state is like the drug state after training

• If memory becomes linked with internal link, we have a switched  state. Delayed onset. Internal link last for hours and in time  

retrieve the memory

o Reconsolidation

▪ KSU study

• Compare RA for new vs old reactivated memory

• Various characteristics

▪ Rutger’s study

• Exception to gradient

• RA for old reactivated memory

o Cue exposure to reactivate

▪ NYU study (Neuroscience)

• Referred to as reconsolidation

• Highly specific brain are to induce RA

▪ Current issues/therapies

• Molecular level – similarities and differences

o Infantile amnesia

▪ Freud observations

• People could not remember at 3 years of age

▪ Animal research

• Basic memory issue, even in rats

• Train rats on fear test before and after weening, then test

• Fear memory forgotten in young animals, thus, basic  

psychobiological phenomenon

▪ Human research

• Difficulties: actual memories or learned?

• Strategy: birth of sibling. 5 years old, they remember. 2 or 3 years  old, they don’t remember

• Paradox: long term effects of early experience but rapid memory  loss?

• Reconcile? One likely mechanism: reinstatement

o Periodic but abridges re-exposures, if they were getting  

1,000 shocks. 1 shock later will help with re-exposure

▪ New developments

• Richardson lab

o Distinction differs in infant rats

o No recovery

• Effects of early stress

o More rapid maturation of HPA axis

o More adult like

▪ Better retention

▪ Recoveries from extinction

o Memory distortions (false memories): memories are not like a video ▪ Piaget’s false memory from childhood

• He believed that the nanny was robbed when she took his out for a  stroll. He learned that his memory was false. The nanny was  

actually the one stealing from them and she told him the false story  and he believed it was a memory.

▪ Bartlett’s “War of ghosts” study

• “schema to recall – inferential process from schema

o Died at sunset rather than sunrise, but since sunrise is  

viewed as a better story, they made a mistake of changing  

the memory without noticing

▪ Memory made consistent with culture

▪ Memory is like a schema

▪ Loftus Misinformation effects

• Car crash

o 2 groups of college students look at a picture of a car crash  

for a moment

o Group 1: “How fast do you think they were going before  

the crash?”

o Group 2: “How fast do you think they were going when  

they crashed?”

o Test: “Was there glass on the ground?”

▪ They said yes because of presuming there would be  

after a crash but there was no glass on the ground  

▪ Legal implications

• Eyewitness testimony = “Best” memory

o Not very reliable

o False conviction of rape

▪ White lady was certain it was the black man that  

raped her, but another black man pled guilty to  

raping her years later

▪ Other issues

• 1. Juries impressed by confidence of witness

o But no relationship between degree of confidence and  

accuracy

• 2. Repressed memories: Real or False?

o Girls says she remembers her uncle used to molest her. She  

repressed the memory and something made it come back

▪ Clinicians can produce memory when trying to find  

out the truth

▪ Can MRI real true memories from false ones? No.

Cache memory (hiding something)

• Squirrels finding acorns

o Lab study: they remember where they hide their own acorns

• Shettleworth study with birds that cache

o 100 holes, and 10 seeds. The birds do find where they hide their seeds accurately o Alternative explanation: they have preferences, like to go left.

o Rule out: double hoarding experiment

▪ The birds get 10 more seeds and since they already have seeds to the far  left, they have to go a different direction. Preference is ruled out

• Clayton’s Scrub Jay study

o Importance of timing and memory

▪ Can remember where they hid, what they hid, and when they hid it

▪ Jays prefer worms over pine nuts

▪ After a while worms deteriorate, so pine nuts were preferred after a long  period of time

Serial Pattern Learning (Sequences; language, phone number, music)

• Dr. Fountain’s work (New learning in rats)

o Ex: Learning monotonic (same direction) vs Non-monotonic (different direction) ▪ Decreasing reward size in memory

▪ Learning: run slowly on the last trial

• Monotonic vs Non-monotonic series

o Importance of patterns and rules

▪ Monotonic learns faster

• Easier to learn sequence in orderly change (14-7-5-3-1-0)

• Octagonal chamber (8 levels)

o Chunking

▪ Pauses between each set of 3

▪ Response patterns: 123-234-345....

▪ Rats can learn the order of the chunk

o Drug effects

▪ Rule learning in rats leads to tests sensitive to drug effects (acute or long  term)

▪ There are signs of impairment when you take drugs away from adolescent  rats

▪ “Behavioral Teratology”

• Severe formations

• Behavioral impairments

• Transitive interference

o Logic (A>B,B>C, so A>C)

o Sports (no transitivity) Team A beats Team B, Team B beats Team C, but you  can’t say that Team A beats Team C

o Lab studies: apes and rhesus monkeys can do transitive inference

• Perceptual concept learning

o Requires generalization and discrimination

▪ Discriminate categories: cats vs dogs

▪ Discriminate within categories: Cat A is not Cat B

o Concept of tree in pigeons (Hernstein’s study)

▪ Picture of trees, pigeon pecks the key and gets a reward

▪ Memorized? No. It is the concept of a tree

▪ Same study but with pictures of fish. Pigeons are still accurate with  

pecking when they see a fish.

Timing in animals

• Duration estimation

o Variation of conditional delayed matching to sample o Cue: duration the light is on the key

▪ If short cue (5 sec): red

▪ If long cue (10 sec): green

▪ After many trials, they can learn to discriminate

• Peak procedure

o Variant of F1 schedule

o Reinforcement omitted to see when responding “peaks” o Distribution of responses (see slide)

▪ The longer the time, the less responses per second

Page Expired
5off
It looks like your free minutes have expired! Lucky for you we have all the content you need, just sign up here