Psych 110 M2

Front 1

More novel stimuli result in ___ rapid conditioning

Back 1

More

Front 2

Latent-inhibition effect

Back 2

Previous exposure to a CS slows the acquisition of a CS-US relationship

Front 3

US preexposure effect

Back 3

Previous exposure to a US slows acquisition of a CR

Front 4

Contiguity predicts that a shorter delay results in ___ conditioning

Back 4

Stronger

Front 5

CS-US relevance/belongingness

Back 5

A relationship is learned faster if it is naturally related

Front 6

Higher order conditioning

Back 6

When a CS1 is strongly trained to a CR, pairing a CS1 with a CS2 will cause the CS2 to elicit the CR

Front 7

Sensory preconditioning

Back 7

When a CS1 and CS2 are already associated with one another, training a CS1 to elicit a CR will also train the CS2 to elicit the CR

Front 8

Stimulus substitution

Back 8

Treating the CS as a surrogate US. Emphasizes importance of the US and assumes the UR and CR are identical.

Front 9

Homeostasis

Back 9

Special case of stimulus substitution where the CR is only identical to the compensatory aspect of the UR

Front 10

S-R learning

Back 10

Thorndike. CS directly elicits CR.

Front 11

S-S learning

Back 11

Pavlov. CS triggers US which elicits the UR.

Front 12

Conditioned diminution of UR

Back 12

CS that predicts a US triggers compensatory reactions that reduce the intensity of the UR

Front 13

Blocking effect

Back 13

A CS1 strongly paired to a US will not allow a CS2 to be paired with the same US

Front 14

Overshadowing effect

Back 14

If a CS1 and CS2 are simultaneously paired with a US, but one is more salient, the other will be blocked

Front 15

Rescorla-Wagner model

Back 15

Predicts that the level of surprise of a US determines the effectiveness

Front 16

Problems with the RW model

Back 16

Predicts extinction of conditioned inhibition. Predicts the extinction is the reversal of acquisition.

Front 17

The comparator hypothesis

Back 17

Predicts that a CS elicits recall via both a direct and indirect pathway

Front 18

If the direct pathway is stronger than the indirect pathway

Back 18

Excitatory CR training

Front 19

If the direct pathway is weaker than the indirect pathway

Back 19

Inhibitory CS training

Front 20

Comparator hypothesis - Recovery from blocking

Back 20

If CS1 undergoes extinction, the indirect pathway between loses strength therefore allowing the direct pathway to dominate and cause a strong CR

Front 21

Comparator hypothesis - Conditioned inhibition

Back 21

If CS+ predicts US, but CS+CS- does not, CS- alone will not elicit any direct pathway and therefore will inhibit the CR

Front 22

Looking for action

Back 22

Attention a CS commands after it is trained and elicits a CR effortlessly

Front 23

Looking for learning

Back 23

Attention a CS commands when they aren't paired with anything yet (have much to be learned about)

Front 24

Looking for liking

Back 24

Attention a stimuli commands due to its emotional value

Front 25

Mackintosh attentional model

Back 25

Attention to CS increases with subsequent trials if it's already a good US predictor

Front 26

Pearce and Hall attentional model

Back 26

Attention to CS decreases with subsequent trials if it's already a good US predictor

Front 27

Temporal account of conditioning

Back 27

CS is learned faster if ISI is constant and ITI is longer or ISI is shorter and ITI is constant

Front 28

Thorndike vs. Skinner

Back 28

Thorndike = operant training is the result of new S-R relationships

Skinner = operant training is the result of strengthened, existing S-R relationships

Front 29

Law of effect

Back 29

If the consequence (reinforcer) of a response is satisfying, the S-R relationship will be strengthened

Front 30

Response shaping

Back 30

Reinforcing behaviors that are succeaively closer to the operand response. Requires a clear desired response and division into appropriate steps

Front 31

Positive reinforcement

Back 31

Positive contingency, appetitive stimulus

Front 32

Punishment

Back 32

Positive contingency, aversive stimulus

Front 33

Negative reinforcement

Back 33

Negative contingency, aversive stimulus

Front 34

Ommision training

Back 34

Negative contingency, appetitive stimulus

Front 35

Variability vs. Stereotypy

Back 35

Rewarding behavior that has/has not been done before. Variable behavior can be successfully reinforced.

Front 36

Relevance/belongingness

Back 36

Operant response cannot be learned unless it is in some way natural to the subject

Front 37

Shifting reinforced quality/quantity

Back 37

Positive contrast encourages operant response while negative contrast discourages operant response

Front 38

Contiguity of response-reinforcer

Back 38

Shorter delay = stronger reinforcment

Front 39

Conditioned reinforcer

Back 39

Secondary reinforcment given when primary reinforcement cannot be to differentiate a behavior

Front 40

Marking

Back 40

Marking every response to make it more salient

Front 41

Adventitious reinforcement

Back 41

Belief that your behaviors are causing a reinforcment when they aren't

Front 42

Terminal responses

Back 42

Activities that increase when reinforcement is about to be delivered

Front 43

Interim responses

Back 43

Behaviors that increase in the middle of the ISI

Front 44

Learned-heplessness effect

Back 44

Impeded learning due to previous exposure to uncontrollable reinforcement

Front 45

Activity deficit hypothesis

Back 45

LHE is actually due to a learned conditioned response to freeze

Front 46

Attention deficit hypothesis

Back 46

LHE is due to the animal's unawareness of its own behavior after repeated shock

Front 47

Stimulus relations in escape

Back 47

Examines why escapable shock isn't nearly as bad for learning as inescapable shock