title: The error in total error reduction.
abstract: Most models of human and animal learning assume that learning is proportional to the discrepancy between a delivered outcome and the outcome predicted by all cues present during that trial (i.e., total error across a stimulus compound). This total error reduction (TER) view has been implemented in connectionist and artificial neural network models to describe the conditions under which weights between units change. Electrophysiological work has revealed that the activity of dopamine neurons is correlated with the total error signal in models of reward learning. Similar neural mechanisms presumably support fear conditioning, human contingency learning, and other types of learning. Using a computational modeling approach, we compared several TER models of associative learning to an alternative model that rejects the TER assumption in favor of local error reduction (LER), which assumes that learning about each cue is proportional to the discrepancy between the delivered outcome and the outcome predicted by that specific cue on that trial. The LER model provided a better fit to the reviewed data than the TER models. Given the superiority of the LER model with the present data sets, acceptance of TER should be tempered.
authors.affiliation: Department of Psychology, State University of New York at Brockport, USA.
authors.forename: James E
authors.initials: JE
authors.lastname: Witnauer
authors.affiliation: Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Cambridge, UK.
authors.forename: Gonzalo P
authors.initials: GP
authors.lastname: Urcelay
authors.affiliation: Department of Psychology, State University of New York at Binghamton, USA. Electronic address: rmiller@binghamton.edu.
authors.forename: Ralph R
authors.initials: RR
authors.lastname: Miller
mesh_terms: D000818:Animals; D001921:Brain / Q000502:physiology*; D003071:Cognition / Q000502:physiology; D003198:Computer Simulation; D006801:Humans; D007858:Learning / Q000502:physiology*; D008959:Models, Neurological; D008960:Models, Psychological
keywords: Associative learning; Conditioned inhibition; Cue competition; Local error reduction; Pavlovian conditioning; Total error reduction; Within-compound associations
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 2008 Jan;34(1):133-43
references.pmid: 18248120
references.citation: Behav Processes. 2008 Jun;78(2):191-203
references.pmid: 18355987
references.citation: Science. 2004 Dec 10;306(5703):1944-7
references.pmid: 15591205
references.citation: Behav Processes. 2012 Mar;89(3):239-43
references.pmid: 22178451
references.citation: Learn Behav. 2004 May;32(2):230-9
references.pmid: 15281395
references.citation: Eur J Neurosci. 2012 Apr;35(7):1124-43
references.pmid: 22487042
references.citation: Nature. 2004 Oct 14;431(7010):760-7
references.pmid: 15483596
references.citation: Learn Behav. 2003 Feb;31(1):85-97
references.pmid: 18450071
references.citation: Neuropsychopharmacology. 2006 Jul;31(7):1362-70
references.pmid: 16319913
references.citation: Neuron. 2004 Dec 2;44(5):877-88
references.pmid: 15572117
references.citation: Nature. 2001 Jul 5;412(6842):43-8
references.pmid: 11452299
references.citation: Behav Neurosci. 2010 Oct;124(5):574-86
references.pmid: 20939658
references.citation: Behav Neurosci. 2007 Oct;121(5):1043-52
references.pmid: 17907835
references.citation: Learn Behav. 2011 May;39(2):146-62
references.pmid: 21264569
references.citation: J Neurosci. 2003 Nov 12;23(32):10402-10
references.pmid: 14614099
references.citation: Learn Behav. 2005 May;33(2):131-46
references.pmid: 16075834
references.citation: Appetite. 1999 Dec;33(3):299-307
references.pmid: 10625523
references.citation: Learn Behav. 2011 May;39(2):138-45
references.pmid: 21264570
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 1992 Oct;18(4):400-13
references.pmid: 1402696
references.citation: Neuron. 1998 Apr;20(4):625-7
references.pmid: 9581755
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 2007 Jul;114(3):759-83
references.pmid: 17638505
references.citation: Q J Exp Psychol B. 2004 Jul;57(3):193-243
references.pmid: 15204108
references.citation: J Neurophysiol. 1998 Jul;80(1):1-27
references.pmid: 9658025
references.citation: Trends Cogn Sci. 2008 Jul;12(7):265-72
references.pmid: 18567531
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 1998 Jul;24(3):335-51
references.pmid: 9679309
references.citation: Psychol Bull. 1995 May;117(3):363-86
references.pmid: 7777644
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 2012 Jan;38(1):52-65
references.pmid: 22229586
references.citation: Hippocampus. 2001;11(5):578-98
references.pmid: 11732710
references.citation: Behav Neurosci. 2004 Feb;118(1):111-20
references.pmid: 14979787
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 1994 Oct;101(4):587-607
references.pmid: 7984708
references.citation: Psychon Bull Rev. 2007 Dec;14(6):1115-24
references.pmid: 18229484
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 1992 Jan;99(1):22-44
references.pmid: 1546117
references.citation: Learn Behav. 2012 Dec;40(4):476-93
references.pmid: 22359182
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 2008 Apr;34(2):223-36
references.pmid: 18426305
references.citation: Learn Behav. 2011 May;39(2):171-90
references.pmid: 21308428
references.citation: Brain Res Brain Res Rev. 1998 Dec;28(3):309-69
references.pmid: 9858756
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 2009 Oct;35(4):485-97
references.pmid: 19839701
references.citation: Learn Behav. 2011 Mar;39(1):12-26
references.pmid: 21264564
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 2000 Oct;26(4):428-38
references.pmid: 11056883
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Gen. 1988 Sep;117(3):227-47
references.pmid: 2971760
references.citation: J Comp Physiol Psychol. 1968 Aug;66(1):1-5
references.pmid: 5672628
references.citation: Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2007 Apr;191(3):391-431
references.pmid: 17072591
references.citation: Q J Exp Psychol B. 2001 Feb;54(1):27-51
references.pmid: 11216299
references.citation: Behav Processes. 2003 Apr 28;62(1-3):5-25
references.pmid: 12729966
references.citation: J Neurosci. 2003 Nov 26;23(34):10827-31
references.pmid: 14645475
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 2006 Jul;32(3):253-70
references.pmid: 16834493
references.citation: Q J Exp Psychol B. 1996 Feb;49(1):60-80
references.pmid: 8901386
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 2008 Jul;115(3):640-76
references.pmid: 18729595
references.citation: J Comp Physiol Psychol. 1961 Aug;54:428-32
references.pmid: 13683658
references.citation: Psychon Bull Rev. 2004 Dec;11(6):1105-10
references.pmid: 15875983
references.citation: Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 2007 Apr;86(4):774-7
references.pmid: 17445874
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Gen. 1985 Jun;114(2):159-97
references.pmid: 3159828
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1992 Mar;18(2):211-33
references.pmid: 1532819
references.citation: Q J Exp Psychol B. 2004 Jan;57(1):25-53
references.pmid: 14690848
references.citation: Neuron. 2002 Oct 10;36(2):241-63
references.pmid: 12383780
references.citation: Science. 1997 Mar 14;275(5306):1593-9
references.pmid: 9054347
references.citation: Learn Behav. 2013 Mar;41(1):94-106
references.pmid: 22926983
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 1982 Jan;8(1):23-32
references.pmid: 7057142