Abstract
In four human learning experiments (Pavlovian skin conductance, causal learning, speeded classification task), we evaluated several associative learning theories that assume either an elemental (modified unique cue model and Harris’ model) or a configural (Pearce’s configural theory and an extension of it) form of stimulus processing. The experiments used two modified patterning problems (A/B/C+, AB/BC/AC+ vs. ABC-; A+, BC+ vs. ABC-). Pearce’s configural theory successfully predicted all of our data reflecting early stimulus processing, while the predictions of the elemental theories were in accord with all of our data reflecting later stages of stimulus processing. Our results suggest that the form of stimulus representation depends on the amount of time available for stimulus processing. Our findings highlight the necessity to investigate stimulus processing during conditioning on a finer time scale than usually done in contemporary research.
Highlights
In any situation in which a stimulus has useful predictive value, this stimulus is embedded within an array of other stimuli, at the very least those that comprise the learning context
In order to evaluate whether or not responding correctly mirrored the contingencies, we collapsed the data across the reinforced single stimuli and two-stimuli compounds and compared these by means of a 263 (Contingency6Block) analysis of variance (ANOVA) with the nonreinforced triple compound
In a first step we checked for successful discrimination learning with a 266 (Contingency6Block) ANOVA
Summary
In any situation in which a stimulus has useful predictive value, this stimulus is embedded within an array of other stimuli, at the very least those that comprise the learning context. A basic question, with which associative learning theorists have struggled for many years, is whether learning attaches independently to the elements that constitute the entire sensory array or whether it attaches instead to the array as a whole. Theories that adopt the former view, so-called elemental theories, assume that responding to an array composed of many elements is a direct function of the values attached to the elements themselves, with the whole array having no separate value over and above that of its constituent parts. As representative of elemental models we took a modified unique cue approach suggested by Redhead and Pearce [1] and the model of Harris [2], whereas representatives of configural models are the configural theory of Pearce [3] and an extended version of it suggested by Kinder and Lachnit [4] (for further detail see Lachnit, Schultheis, Konig, Ungor, and Melchers [5])
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
