Intertrial interval as a contextual stimulus: further analysis of a novel asymmetry in temporal discrimination learning.
Four experiments investigated discrimination learning when the duration of the intertrial interval (ITI) signaled whether or not the next conditional stimulus (CS) would be paired with food pellets. Rats received presentations of a 10-s CS separated half the time by long ITIs and half the time by short ITIs. When the long ITI signaled that the CS would be reinforced and the short interval signaled that it would not be (Long+/Short-), rats learned the discrimination readily. However, when the short ITI signaled that the CS would be reinforced and the long interval signaled that it would not (Short+/Long-), discrimination learning was much slower. Experiment 1 compared Long+/Short- and Short+/Long- discrimination learning with 16-min/4-min or 4-min/1-min ITI combinations. Experiment 2 found no evidence that Short+/Long- learning is inferior because the temporal cue corresponding to the short interval is ambiguous. Experiment 3 found no evidence that Short+/Long- learning is poor because the end of a long ITI signals a substantial reduction in delay to the next reinforcer. Long+/Short- learning may be faster than Short+/Long-because elapsing time involves exposure to a sequence of hypothetical stimulus elements (e.g., A then B), and feature-positive discriminations (AB+/A-) are learned quicker than feature-negative discriminations (A+/AB-). Consistent with this view, Experiment 4 found a robust feature-positive effect when sequentially presented CSs played the role of elements A and B.
Department of Psychology, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT 05405, USA. Mark.bouton@uvm.edu
Mark E
ME
Bouton
Michael C
MC
Hendrix
D000818:Animals; D003214:Conditioning, Classical; D003216:Conditioning, Operant; D003463:Cues; D004193:Discrimination Learning / Q000502:physiology*; D005260:Female; D051381:Rats; D017208:Rats, Wistar; D012054:Reinforcement, Psychology; D013997:Time Factors; D013998:Time Perception / Q000502:physiology*
Biol Cybern. 1988;58(6):405-15
3395634
Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1984;423:52-77
6588812
Behav Processes. 2002 Apr 28;57(2-3):89-106
11947991
J Exp Anal Behav. 1969 Sep;12(5):723-30
16811396
J Exp Anal Behav. 1999 Mar;71(2):215-51
10220931
J Exp Anal Behav. 1993 Jul;60(1):159-69
8354964
Psychon Bull Rev. 2001 Jun;8(2):203-20
11495110
Psychol Rev. 1997 Apr;104(2):241-65
9127582
Cognition. 1990 Nov;37(1-2):55-81
2269008
Psychol Rev. 2000 Apr;107(2):289-344
10789198
J Exp Psychol. 1968 Feb;76(2):171-80
5636557
Behav Processes. 2003 Apr 28;62(1-3):27-48
12729967
Psychol Bull. 1993 Jul;114(1):80-99
8346330
Learn Behav. 2004 May;32(2):220-9
15281394
Psychol Rev. 1987 Jan;94(1):61-73
3823305
Psychol Rev. 1994 Oct;101(4):587-607
7984708
J Exp Anal Behav. 1998 Nov;70(3):301-20
9821681
J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 1989 Oct;15(4):311-28
2794868
Behav Processes. 2006 Feb 28;71(2-3):307-17
16412585
J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 2012 Oct;38(4):381-93
22924827
Psychol Rev. 1988 Apr;95(2):274-95
3375401
Behav Brain Res. 2008 Feb 11;187(1):159-71
17950928
Psychon Bull Rev. 1994 Dec;1(4):457-75
24203554
Behav Processes. 2010 May;84(1):412-20
20067824
J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 1987 Jan;13(1):52-64
3819651
J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 1993 Jul;19(3):265-83
8340769