psy 26 exam 2

Wright et al (1988)

• match-to-sample test with pigeons

• first-encounter transfer to unfamiliar pictures = general matching relationship

  • hinges on specific qualities present in both

stimulus specific learning

successful performance when same stimulus trained on is presented

relational learning

generalizable → ability to transfer pattern/relationship to novel stimulus

Herrnstein & Loveland

pigeon test: people present in stimulus image → learned to discriminate presence of people or not

Bhatt et al (1988)

• pigeons presented with person, flower, car, chair → able to respond correctly after about a year (novel picture transfer)

• natural stimuli learned faster

Cerella (1980) Watanabe (2001)

• pigeon image scramble test

• cartoon register as unnatural objets BUT photographs of people in the real world still recognized

• use of spatial arrangement

object permanance

evolutionarily beneficial (learned ~ 1 year old)

Miller et al (2009)

changing container location after 180 degree rotation confused dogs

• creates spatial/contextual conflict

“opposite behaviors”

ex. compassion and violence → can recruit many of the same regions/circuits of the brain

Mechner

• two-lever response-run procedure: hit target “n” on lever A then press lever B to receive reward

• larger requirements = broader run-length distributions

Meck and Church (1983)

• tested for both number of presses and length of pressing cycles (2 presses and 2 seconds)

• holding each constant in different tests verifies that animals keep track of both dimensions

fixed time schedule

• animals more active closer to reward delivery in interval

fixed interval schedule

• same number of presses to get reward

scalar timing

absolute variability grows with duration but relative precision stays

SD / mean = variance

doubling the mean doubles SD = quadruple variance

suprachiasmatic nucleus

coordinates circadian timing → retinal input helps entrain to light

free running

operates without external time cues

entrainment

entrain physiological stuff that reinforces or derails other stuff

zeitgerbers

cues that influence internal clock

seconds-to-minutes interval timing

entrains short durations (working memory and decision making)

CLOCK–BMAL1

activates Per/Cry transcription

• Per/Cry feedback suppresses transcription activation

• this cycle turns them into proteins (gene expression)

beta fish studies (Thompson)

• moving models maintained more response than stationary models

• model color matters relative to fish color (least interested in self color → most interested in contrast)

beta fish response distinction

• go through apparatus → see fish (reward) -. increases response

• if seeing the fish was preceded by a light → displayed in response to light as well

Cunningham et al (2004)

• amygdala responds to salience

• rapid social evaluation: more active in response to faces of another race

• longer presentations; more PFC activation

Greenwald et al (1998)

IAT response time reveals relative associations

positive reinforcer

increase in behavior bc of application

negative reinforcer

decrease in behavior bc of application

reinforcement

increases behavior

punishment

decreases behavior

FR schedule

depends on response count

FI and VI

require elapsed time followed by a response

VI response pattern

steadier

FI response pattern

scalloped

contingency

dependency between events

discriminative stimulus

signals when an action will have a particular consequence

fixed action pattern

sequence of behavior in response to something

dopamine prediction error

• unexpected → dope hits at reward

• predicted → dope hits at cue presentation (steady when reward comes)

• omission → dope hits at cue presentation (loss when reward should occur but doesn’t)

Arin and Holz (1961)

• pause length = proportional to intensity of shock 9get over it after a few minutes)

• intiial post-shock pause response goes away after a few reps

• overall response rate hides temporal organization because all concentrated toward end of interval

Arin and Holz FI response pattern

gradual reduction in total responses BUT percentage in each quarter of interval doesn’t change

Berridge

rats get close to stimulus → salt solution → over time, distance from bar, motivation to attend to stimulus decreases

BUT

• injection of solution that makes them want salt → spend more time with stimulus

Rescorla - Wagner model

all learning is contingent on expectation

chain schedule

perform one task → then perform another task → then receive reward

ex. rats with sucrose solution