Configural Associations in Discrimination Learning
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Copyright 1990 by the American Psychological Association, Inc. Animal Behavior Processes 0097-7403/90,r$00.75 1990. Vol. 16, No. 3, 250-261 Configural Associations in Discrimination Learning John M. Pearce and Paul N. Wilson University of Wales, College of Cardiff, Cardiff, Wales In 4 experiments, Sprague-Dawley rats and homing pigeons received training with an A+ AB0 BC+ discrimination, in which food (+) accompanied trials with A and EtC. Food was not presented (0) on trials with the compound AB. Subsequent test trials revealed that responding during C by itself, or the compound ABC, was slower than during either A or BC. Responding during the ABC compound was also found to be slower after training with the A+ AB0 BC+ than an A0 AB+ BC+ discrimination. We argue that these findings demonstrate the importance of configural associations in discrimination learning. Two accounts for the way in which these associations exert their influence are considered. A major concern relating to theories of conditioning has Saavedra, 1975; Whitlow & Wagner, 1972; Woodbury, 1943~ been to identify the associations that are formed when a For example, animals can solve a negative patterning problem compound conditioned stimulus (CS) is paired with an un- in which the US follows two stimuli when they are presented conditioned stimulus (US). By far the most influential line of separately but not when they are presented together (Bel- theorizing has been to assume that this training provides the lingham et al., 1985; Rescorla, 1972; Woodbury, 1943). Ac- potential for each stimulus within the compound to enter cording to the Rescorla and Wagner (1972) model, without separately into an association with the US (Frey & Sears, the influence of confignral cues, this discrimination would be 1978; Mackintosh, 1975; Moore & Stickney, 1980; Pearce & insoluble, because it is impossible for a CS by itself to signal Hall, 1980; Rescorla & Wagner, 1972). The magnitude of the a US and at the same time inhibit the CR elicited by another conditioned response (CR) in the presence of the compound CS when they occur in a compound. But if the compound is then held to be directly related to the algebraic sum of the generates a configural cue, then this confignral stimulus will associative strengths of its elements. acquire the inhibitory properties necessary to suppress re- An alternative theory that has a long but less influential sponding on compound trials. history is that during compound conditioning, confignral A frequent observation is that animals require many trials information about the entire compound enters into an asso- before they master this type of discrimination (Rescorla, ciation with the US. There have been two versions of this type 1972), and it has therefore been suggested that in relation to of account. First, there has been the suggestion that associa- conventional stimuli, the salience of configural stimuli is low. tions involving conflgural cues are the only associations For example, Bellingham et al. (1985) used the Rescorla and formed during compound conditioning (Bellingham & Gil- Wagner model to stimulate the results from their patterning lette, 1981; Bellingham, Gillette-Bellingham, & Kehoe, 1985; experiments: They found that the best fit to the obtained Estes & Hopkins, 1961; Friedman & Gelfand, 1964; Gulliksen results was when the salience of the explicit stimuli was about & Wolfle, 1938a, 1938b; Heinemann & Chase, 1975; Pearce, l0 times that of the configural cue. This suggests that normally 1987). The alternative is that the separate elements within a during conditioning, configural cues will acquire very little compound generate unique configural cues that can take part associative strength, and their influence will be negligible in conditioning in addition to, and in the same way as, the (Wagner & Rescorla, 1972). more conventional stimuli that are manipulated by the ex- The principal aim of this article is to investigate the hy- perimenter (Gluck & Bower, 1988; Rescorla, 1972, 1973, pothesis that configural information is more important for Wagner & Rescorla, 1972). The more popular of these ap- discrimination learning than has hitherto been generally ap- proaches has been the second. preciated. In particular, the experiments examine whether Support for configural theories comes from studies that configural learning plays an influential role in solving a dis- have demonstrated that animals can solve discriminations crimination that can theoretically be solved by relying solely that theoretically would be insoluble in the absence of confi- on the explicit individual training stimuli. A secondary aim gurai cues (Bellingham et al., 1985; Rescorla, 1972, 1973; is to evaluate the relative merits of the two types of explana- tion considered earlier, for the way in which configural infor- mation is effective. This work was supported by a grant from the United Kingdom In four experiments, animals received discrimination train- Science and Engineering Research Council. ing with three different types of trial that were intermixed. The ideas behind this research were developed while John M. There were trials in which one CS was paired with a US (A+); Pearce was on study leave at the Department of Psychology at Duke trials in which this stimulus was presented in a compound University, and he is grateful for their generous provision of facilities and followed by nothing, (AB0); and finally, trials in which B during this period. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to was paired with a third CS and followed by the US (BC+). either John M. Pearce or Paul N. Wilson at the School of Psychology, According to at least one theory of conditioning, the Rescoda University of Wales, College of Cardiff, Cardiff CF1 3YG Wales. and Wagner (1972) model, there is no need for subjects to 250 CONFIGURAL LEARNING 251 rely on configural information to solve this discrimination. experimental stimuli. Unfortunately, this relationship is cru- Equation 1 shows the way in which this model predicts the cial, because it critically influences the predictions made by change in associative strength, AV, that will occur to a CS on the Rescoda and Wagner (1972) model for the proposed any given trial. In this equation, a and/~ are learning-rate experiments. parameters with values between 0 and 1 that are determined To demonstrate this point, we used a computer simulation by the intensity or salience of the CS and the nature of the based on Equation 1 to predict the outcome of the A+ AB0 US, respectively; ~ is the asymptote of conditioning deter- BC+ discrimination. The value of fl was set at 0.2, the mined by the magnitude of the US; and VT is the combined asymptote for conditioning on reinforced trials was set at l, associative strength of all the stimuli present on the trial in and the value of a for A, B, and C was set at 0.2. A series of question. simulations then examined the effects of using different values of a for the configural cues on the asymptotic associative Av= ~. ~. (x- v~). (l) strengths of A, B, C, X, and Y. For reasons that will be By applying Equation 1 to the three stimuli used in the A+ explained later, the effect of presenting the three stimuli in AB0 BC+ discrimination, it can be predicted that condition- the compound ABC was also computed. Figure l shows the ing will cease when the associative strengths of A and of B outcome of these simulations. When the salience of the con- and C together are equal to Xand when the associative strength figural stimuli was 0 (i.e., when their presence was ignored), of A and B together is equal to 0. To sustain these asymptotic then the simulation confirmed the predictions derived earlier values, conditioning must necessarily result in B possessing from the Rescorla and Wagner (1972) model: The associative negative strength, of value -),, so that it can counteract the strength of A, VA, has a value of 1, and the associative strength properties of A on AB0 trials. The negative strength of B will of B, VB, has a value of - 1, whereas the predicted value for then result in superconditioning with C, so that C will acquire Vc is 2. As the salience of the configural stimuli increases, an associative strength of 2~. As a result of this relatively however, the values of VB and Vc approach 0. Of particular simple training, therefore, presenting C alone should result in importance is that when the salience of the configural cues a substantially higher level of responding than during BC. approaches 0.1, the value of Vc falls below the asymptotic The reason for selecting this particular experimental design value of 1. This means that if the salience of the configural for the proposed experiments is that there is at least one cues is relatively weak (i.e., less than approximately one half configural theory of conditioning that predicts a quite differ- of the salience of the experimental stimuli), the Rescorla and cnt outcome to that just described. According to Pearce Wagner model predicts that presenting C alone will result in (1987), conditioning does not result in the growth of associa- a CR that is of greater than asymptotic strength and that tions between individual stimuli and the US with which they responding during C will be greater than during BC. On the are paired; instead, connections are assumed to develop be- other hand, if the salience of the configural stimuli is relatively tween the US and the entire pattern of stimulation that high, then the CR elicited by C will be of less than asymptotic preceded it. Thus, in the preceding paradigm, training will magnitude, and r'~ponding during C will be weaker than result in representations of A and of BC entering into associ- during BC.