Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
32 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Famous dog experiment on learning |
Pavlov (1927) |
|
|
Used fMRI to show that substantia nigra and Ventral Tegmental Area (VTA) were more active with appetitive CSs; these areas project to fore brain where they may facilitate neural processing by releasing DA as a neurotransmitter |
O'Doherty et al. (2002) |
|
|
Paired some plants with shock and some not, and participants were asked to rate likelihood of shock to each CS; SCR seen in those who learned the discrimination, not in others |
Lovibond (1992) |
|
|
Extinction typically declines steadily, but instructed extinction resulted in the immediate disappearance of SCR; Explicit Learning: awareness of CS/US link causes response |
Hughdahl & Ohman |
|
|
Implicit Learning |
Using a fear relevant stimuli (snake/spider) meant instruction had little impact on extinction; a CS indicates a potentially dangerous US |
|
|
Study of SCR learning in patients with AMG damage, HC damage & both. AMG, AMG+HG did not acquire SCR whilst HC did. HC, AMG+HC did not report correctly which CSs are followed by US. |
Bechara et al. (1995) |
|
|
Interviewed patients about food consumed prior to chemo and found no correlation between the time of consumption and chemo or time between food consumption and vomiting in conditioned food aversions |
Andrykowski & Otis (1990) |
|
|
Blocking |
1) A paired with US (A+) B not (B-) 2) A paried with stimulus X, B paired with Y 3) AX+ and BY+ paired with US Conditioned response seen to Y alone but not X alone |
|
|
Found activation changes in ventral striatum better associated with learning on BY+ and AX+, suggesting activity in anterior region of orbitofrontal cortex correlated with degree of blocking |
Tobler et al. (2006) |
|
|
Rescorla-Wagner Rule |
Associative strength of CS (expectation) results from degree to which current associative strength deviates from perfect learning (surprise). This deviation is Prediction Error. |
|
|
Showed conditioned inhibition |
Lovibond et al. (2000) - A,C and D paired with shock, AE not. In extinction phase, C paired with E. SCR responses to C but not to D, as E became a conditioned inhibitor, so protects C from losing excitatory strength |
|
|
Showed superlearning; asked participants to imagine they were allergists establishing specific allergies in patients. Banana allergic, banana-mushroom not. Mushroom-pear allergic = superlearning |
Turner et al. (2004) |
|
|
Trained participants on a videogame to fire at invaders in presence of a warning light. Preexposing stimulus A prior to pairing it with a US retarded learning about A; Latent Inhibition |
Nelson & Sanjuan (2006) |
|
|
Pearce-Hall Theory (1980) |
LI due to a loss of attention to pre-exposed stimulus - sustained attention when unreliable association |
|
|
Mackintosh Theory (1975) |
The more reliable for predicting an outcome a stimulus is, the more attention paid to it. Pre-exposure shows a reliable predictor of no outcome, and therefore less attention is paid to it |
|
|
Participants show few fixations when they are learned to pair it with a US, but when one is presented with outcome on half the trials, participants show many fixations |
Hogarth et al. (2008) |
|
|
Instrumental Conditioning |
Experiencing a causal relationship between the response and its outcome changes learning |
|
|
Cats could learn to press a lever to get certain otucomes |
Thorndlike (1911) |
|
|
Ratio Schedule |
A response produces a reinforcer with a certain probability, higher response = higher reinforcement. |
|
|
Interval Schedule |
Next reinforcer only becomes available at a time after the last |
|
|
Rewarded lever press with money on ration schedule, after press the reward becomes available for another participant. Ratio had higher rate of responding |
Matthews et al. (1977) |
|
|
Participants touch one of two simultaneous stimuli, one yields fruit with higher probability. Other participants received yoked pairings of the stimuli without making the choice. More activity in the dorsal striatum in the instrumental task. |
O'Doherty et al. (2004) |
|
|
Children learn to touch one icon for one cartoon, another for another. One then devalued with overexposure. Kids over 27 months picked the entertaining cartoon showing Goal-Directed behaviour |
Klossek et al. (2008) |
|
|
fMRI test involving fruit box with goal-directed or habit behaviour. vmPFC activation found in goal-directed behaviour, dorsomedial PFC in S-R trial |
De Wit et al (2009) |
|
|
Stimulus has 0.4 outcome chocolate + 0.3 OJ, the other 0.3 OJ. Another has 0.4 outcome Tomato + 0.3 OJ, the other 0.3 OJ. vmPFC activation in rewarding trials. Tomato devalued, greater medial & central PFC activity in high probability choices in valued condition. Region sensitive to incentive value of reinforcers. |
Valentin et al. (2007) |
|
|
Peak-Shift Effect |
If S+ is reinforced and S- is not, net associative strength of S+ is less than an untrained S++ further along the dimension. Responding is greater to S++. Visible in pigeons. |
|
|
Rule-Learning in humans |
Further from a trained stimulus an untrained stimulus is, the more likely it is an example of this rule. |
|
|
Categorisation |
A prototype of a category is something with features taken to be most diagnostic of it. Distortion is the amount which another stimulus varies from the prototype. 'Typicality effect': humans less accurate in classifying high-distortion exemplars. The 'prototype effect' shows better classification of the prototype in the test phase than other new exemplars. |
|
|
Severely amnesic patient (EP) with bilateral hippocampal damage demonstrated prototype effect without being able to recognise any trained sitmuli |
Squire & Knowlton (1995) |
|
|
-ve: foods alone cause outcome, together don't +ve: foods together cause outcome, alone don't Participants must recognise rule in either condition and then apply it to the other Some respond correctly, others respond associatively with summed value. |
Shanks & Darby (1998) |
|
|
S+ contained D,E,F,G,H and S-, E,F,G,H,I. Number of instances varied so D and I could not be determined as the discriminating factor. Performance demonstrated peak-shift effect. |
Wills & Mackintosh (1998) |
|
|
Gambling Fallacy used: 50% of CS followed by US. 1,2,3 or 4 runs of (CS+) and 1,2,3 or 4 runs of (CS-), Eye-blink CR behaved associatively, expectancy ratings obeyed gambling fallacy |
Perruchet (1985) |
