1 / 22

Rescorla-Wagner Model

Rescorla-Wagner Model. US-processing model. Can account for some Pavlovian Conditioning phenomena:. acquisition. blocking. unblocking with an upshift. conditioned inhibition. US-pre-exposure effect. Cannot account for some Pavlovian Conditioning phenomena:.

garrison-munoz
Download Presentation

Rescorla-Wagner Model

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Rescorla-Wagner Model • US-processing model • Can account for some Pavlovian Conditioning phenomena: • acquisition • blocking • unblocking with an upshift • conditioned inhibition • US-pre-exposure effect • Cannot account for some Pavlovian Conditioning phenomena: • extinction (i.e., spontaneous recovery) • unblocking with a downshift • latent inhibition • temporal factors (i.e., CS-US interval)

  2. Pearce-Hall Model • attention model of conditioning • a CS-processing model • according to the model, it is highly adaptive to pay pay attention to, or process, CSs that could become valid predictors of important outcomes (i.e., USs) • it is also adaptive not to pay attention to, or process, CSs when the important event is already predicted by something else

  3. Pearce-Hall Model • also based on the concept of surprise • when the subject is surprised, attention to, or processing of the CS occurs • as the US becomes predicted by a CS, and is less surprising, processing of the CS declines • The amount of processing, that is associability of a CS, changes on each trial depending on whether the US was predicted (on the previous trial) • If the US was predicted, then attention to the CS declines • If the US was not predicted, then attention to the CS increases

  4. Pearce-Hall Model ΔVA = k(λ – VT) Recall from the RW Model, k = constant; salience or associability of the CS With the PH Model, k changes across trials (CS processing model, not a US processing model)

  5. Pearce-Hall Model kAN = λN-1 – VAN-1 kAN = associative strength or associability of CSA on trial N λN-1= strength of the US on previous trial VAN-1 = strength of CSA on previous trial (could become VT if more than one CS) Important point: k depends on what happened on the previous trial; on first exposure, novelty causes some attention

  6. Pearce-Hall Model kAN = λN-1 – VAN-1 Early in training, when the strength of the CS is low (i.e., λ – V is high) see high k value and thus, more attention to the CS When the CS is strong in later trials (i.e., λ – V is small) attention to the CS is low The important point is that attention to the CS changes across trials

  7. Pearce-Hall Model Attention to, or processing of, the CS can be measured in terms of an OR (i.e., looking at a L) This is different than the CR Support for the PH Model comes from the finding that subjects orient towards novel stimuli and maintain their orientation, provided the stimulus is a poor predictor of the US

  8. Kaye & Pearce compared the OR in 3 groups of rats Group 1: L alone Group 2: L condensed milk Group 3: L milk/no milk (inconsistent/random) Looked at OR to L Attention (OR) was high on the first trial since the L is novel

  9. kAN = λN-1 – VAN-1 Group 1: L alone k stays low (decrease attention) Group 2: L milk VA gets bigger over time which makes the total term smaller (this means small k and decrease in attention) Group 3: L milk/no milk Attention remains high since VA is low

  10. When the CS is not a good predictor, rats maintained their attention to the cue If the CS is a good predictor (of the US or no US), then attention decreases

  11. Pearce-Hall Model and Blocking • like the RW Model, all CSs combine to predict the US • if one CS already predicts the US, then pay less attention to all CSs on that trial • when a new CS is added, should pay attention to it because it is novel • therefore, should see some conditioning to the new cue on the first trial based on the salience of the CS

  12. Pearce-Hall Model and Blocking • only after first trial is over would the animal know that nothing new had happened • according to the model, should see blocking from trial 2 and onwards • however, in most cases see blocking right from the start

  13. Pearce-Hall Model and Unblocking kAN = λN-1 – VAN-1 • when subjects encounter a US that is not well predicted, or is surprising (either bigger or smaller), then subjects should pay attention to all CSs on that trial and get unblocking • because the formula includes the absolute value of λN-1 – VAN-1 it doesn’t matter if the US is bigger or smaller • if the US changes we’ll see increase in attention and thus, learning

  14. Pearce-Hall Model and latent inhibition When the CS is given by itself, see decrease in attention to the CS over trials (λ = 0) However, a problem with the model is that it cannot explain the context-specificity of LI If CS pre-exposures are given in one context, and conditioning occurs in a second context, there is no retardation of learning According to the model, k should be low regardless of context

  15. The Comparator Hypothesis • developed by Ralph Miller • this is a model of performance, not learning • according to Miller, all CSs have excitatory power; there is no separate inhibitory process • the strength of performance (or CR) depends on the relative strength of the various excitatory associations • a subject compares the excitatory strength of the explicit CS to the strength of other cues present in the situation, such as apparatus cues

  16. The Comparator Hypothesis • when the strength of a CS is relatively greater than the background cues, get a measurable CR • when the strength of a CS is weaker than the background cues, get weakened level of excitation (what others might call inhibition) • according to the theory, the competition between two excitatory reactions controls performance

  17. The Comparator Hypothesis • during normal excitatory, get CS-US pairings – but the US is also paired with background cues and these background cues are the comparator stimuli • because these background cues are also present during the ‘no-US’ condition, they are typically weaker than the explicit CS • so, under normal conditioning procedures, the CS has stronger excitatory strength than the comparator cues

  18. The Comparator Hypothesis • during inhibitory conditioning, the CS is weak relative to the background cues • during inhibitory conditioning, have CS – no US pairings; but the background cues are paired with the US and the absence of the US • thus, the CS is weaker than the background cues and see little CR to the CS

  19. The Comparator Hypothesis • Prediction – After training one can manipulate the excitatory value of the context and this will affect the excitatory value of the CS • E.g. – After conditioning, give repeated exposure to the context alone followed by exposure to CS • One will see greater responding to CS

  20. Temporal Factor Models • designed to explain the effects of time in conditioning • effects of time not considered in US-processing models like the RW model nor in CS-processing models like the PH model • CS-US interval is one important temporal variable • a more critical temporal variable appears to be the ratio of the ISI to ITI

  21. Midterm Exam Thursday, Feb. 17, 2005 • covers everything up to and including today’s lecture • in the case of a storm, the exam will take place during • the very next class

More Related