title: It's the information!
abstract: Learning in conditioning protocols has long been thought to depend on temporal contiguity between the conditioned stimulus and the unconditioned stimulus. This conceptualization has led to a preponderance of associative models of conditioning. We suggest that trial-based associative models that posit contiguity as the primary principle underlying learning are flawed, and provide a brief review of an alternative, information theoretic approach to conditioning. The information that a CS conveys about the timing of the next US can be derived from the temporal parameters of a conditioning protocol. According to this view, a CS will support conditioned responding if, and only if, it reduces uncertainty about the timing of the next US.
authors: Columbia University, United States. rw2353@columbia.edu
authors: Ryan D
authors: RD
authors: Ward
authors: C R
authors: CR
authors: Gallistel
authors: Peter D
authors: PD
authors: Balsam
mesh_terms: D000818:Animals; D001245:Association Learning / Q000502:physiology*; D003213:Conditioning, Psychological / Q000502:physiology*; D007858:Learning / Q000502:physiology; D008960:Models, Psychological; D013997:Time Factors
references: J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 1998 Jan;24(1):72-83
references: 9438967
references: J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 1995 Jan;21(1):43-63
references: 7844506
references: J Comp Physiol Psychol. 1961 Oct;54:572-6
references: 14006713
references: J Exp Anal Behav. 1958 Apr;1(2):153-62
references: 16811211
references: J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 2012 Jul;38(3):217-32
references: 22468633
references: J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 2000 Apr;26(2):206-19
references: 10782435
references: J Comp Physiol Psychol. 1968 Aug;66(1):1-5
references: 5672628
references: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012 May 29;109(22):8776-9
references: 22592792
references: Psychol Rev. 1988 Apr;95(2):274-95
references: 3375401
references: Psychol Rev. 2000 Apr;107(2):289-344
references: 10789198
references: Nat Rev Neurosci. 2005 Oct;6(10):755-65
references: 16163383
references: J Neurosci. 2001 Jan 15;21(2):682-90
references: 11160447
references: J Exp Psychol. 1968 Feb;76(2):171-80
references: 5636557
references: Neuron. 2007 Feb 1;53(3):427-38
references: 17270738
references: J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 2004 Jan;30(1):3-16
references: 14709111
references: Comp Cogn Behav Rev. 2010;5:1-22
references: 21359131
references: J Exp Anal Behav. 1961 Jul;4:203-8
references: 13741095
references: Behav Processes. 1998 Dec;44(2):147-62
references: 24896972
references: J Comp Physiol Psychol. 1968 Dec;66(3):679-87
references: 5721496
references: Annu Rev Psychol. 2013;64:169-200
references: 22804775
references: J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 2006 Jul;32(3):284-94
references: 16834495
references: J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 2005 Jan;31(1):31-9
references: 15656725
references: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009 Feb 17;106(7):2459-63
references: 19188592
references: Trends Neurosci. 2009 Feb;32(2):73-8
references: 19136158