27
ssociative Structure of Instrumental Conditi Simple, Binary Associations S-R association

The Associative Structure of Instrumental Conditioning Simple, Binary Associations S-R association

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: The Associative Structure of Instrumental Conditioning Simple, Binary Associations  S-R association

The Associative Structure of Instrumental Conditioning

Simple, Binary Associations

S-R association

Page 2: The Associative Structure of Instrumental Conditioning Simple, Binary Associations  S-R association

S-R association

T BP food

see more BP during the T than in its absence

Page 3: The Associative Structure of Instrumental Conditioning Simple, Binary Associations  S-R association

The Associative Structure of Instrumental Conditioning

Simple, Binary Associations

S-R association

R-O association

Page 4: The Associative Structure of Instrumental Conditioning Simple, Binary Associations  S-R association

R-O association

Colwill & Rescorla (1985)

Training Devaluation Test

R1 O1

R2 O2

O1 LiCL

O2 nothing

R1 and R2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Meanresp/min

R1 -outcomewas devalued

Time

R2 -outcomenot devalued

Page 5: The Associative Structure of Instrumental Conditioning Simple, Binary Associations  S-R association

The Associative Structure of Instrumental Conditioning

Simple, Binary Associations

S-R association R-O association S-O association

Page 6: The Associative Structure of Instrumental Conditioning Simple, Binary Associations  S-R association

S-O association

Colwill & Rescorla (1988)

Sd training Response training Test

S1 R1 O1

S2 R2 O2

R3 O1

R4 O2

S1: R3 vs R4

S2: R3 vs R4

2

4

6

10

Meanresp/min Different

outcome

Trials

Sameoutcome

8

Page 7: The Associative Structure of Instrumental Conditioning Simple, Binary Associations  S-R association

The Associative Structure of Instrumental Conditioning

Simple, Binary Associations

S-R association R-O association S-O association

Hierarchical Associations

S – [R – O]

Page 8: The Associative Structure of Instrumental Conditioning Simple, Binary Associations  S-R association

Hierarchical Associations

Rescorla (1990)

Training Test

S1 [R1 O1]

S1 [R2 O2]

S2 [R1 O2]

S2 [R2 O1]

But also,

R1 O1

R2 O2

S1: R1 vs R2

S2: R1 vs R2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Meanresp/min

S2 - informative

Trials

S1 -not informative

Page 9: The Associative Structure of Instrumental Conditioning Simple, Binary Associations  S-R association

What if we trained:

S1 – [R1 – O1]

S2 – [R2 – O2]

And then gave:

R1 – O1

Which S is more informative?

Would an increase in responding in the presence of S2

relative to S1 be indicative of a hierarchical association?

Page 10: The Associative Structure of Instrumental Conditioning Simple, Binary Associations  S-R association

Theories of Reinforcement

1. Reinforcement as stimulus presentation

Thorndike a stimulus that is satisfying

Hull’s Drive Reduction Theory

any stimulus that satisfies the biological need, Restores homeostasis, and thus reduces the drive state serves as a reinforcer

2. Reinforcement as behavior

The Premack Principle Behavioral Regulation Approaches

Page 11: The Associative Structure of Instrumental Conditioning Simple, Binary Associations  S-R association

Chapter 8Stimulus Control of Behavior

Page 12: The Associative Structure of Instrumental Conditioning Simple, Binary Associations  S-R association

Stimulus Control

Thorndike's original law of effect implied stimulus control. The stimuli (S+/-) present at the time of the reinforced response come to control the response.

Classical Conditioning: The CS (CS+/-) comes to control responding

Operant Conditioning:

Page 13: The Associative Structure of Instrumental Conditioning Simple, Binary Associations  S-R association

How do you know that an instrumental response has come under the control of certain stimuli?Reynolds (1961)

Test

Training

20

0

10

Test stimuli

Pigeon #105Pigeon #107

Page 14: The Associative Structure of Instrumental Conditioning Simple, Binary Associations  S-R association

Reynolds experiment demonstrated:

Stimulus control• the stimulus control of instrumental behavioris demonstrated by variations in responding (differential responding) related to variations in stimuli

Stimulus discrimination• an organism is said to exhibit stimulus discrimination if it responds differently to twoor more stimuli

If an organism does not discriminate between 2 stimuli,its behavior is not under the control of those cues

Page 15: The Associative Structure of Instrumental Conditioning Simple, Binary Associations  S-R association

To measure the perceived similarity of different stimuli from the training stimulus:

• A Generalization Test:– Measure responding when a CS+/- or an S+/-

is replaced with test stimuli which are different from (but usually similar to) the original CS or S.

– If the stimulus can be changed across a single dimension (e.g., wavelength of light or frequency of sound), then a generalization gradient can be plotted.

Stimulus Generalization and Discrimination

Page 16: The Associative Structure of Instrumental Conditioning Simple, Binary Associations  S-R association

Generalization Gradient

obtained by presenting a number of stimuli of different values from the same dimension (e.g., wavelength/color; frequency/pitch) as the CS+/- or S+/- used in training

Generalization is evident to the degree that responding to test stimuli is similar to responding to the training stimulus (flatter gradient).

Discrimination is evident to the degree that responding to test stimuli is different from responding to the training stimulus (more peaked gradient).

Page 17: The Associative Structure of Instrumental Conditioning Simple, Binary Associations  S-R association

The Effects of Training Procedures on Generalization and Discrimination

Nondifferential Training : – S+ always present.

Trained to respond (or not) in presence of CS+ or S+

(or CS- or S-). Then usually tested in extinction with a variety of test stimuli

Page 18: The Associative Structure of Instrumental Conditioning Simple, Binary Associations  S-R association

Flat gradient

Similar to Figure p. 234 in text

More generalization

Page 19: The Associative Structure of Instrumental Conditioning Simple, Binary Associations  S-R association

Differential (or Discrimination) Training: - Presence/Absence Training:

* reinforced in presence of S+, not in its absence.

The Effects of Training Procedures on Generalization and Discrimination

Nondifferential Training :

- S+ always present.

Page 20: The Associative Structure of Instrumental Conditioning Simple, Binary Associations  S-R association

Flat gradient

More peaked gradient

Similar to Figure p. 234 in text

More generalization

Less generalization; more discrimination

Page 21: The Associative Structure of Instrumental Conditioning Simple, Binary Associations  S-R association

- Intradimensional Training:* reinforced in presence of S+ (e.g., tone of

1000 cps) and not reinforced in presence of S- (e.g., tone of 950 cps), S+ and S- from the same dimension.

The Effects of Training Procedures on Generalization and Discrimination

Nondifferential Training :

- S+ always present. Differential (or Discrimination) Training: - Presence/Absence Training:

* reinforced in presence of S+, not in its absence.

Page 22: The Associative Structure of Instrumental Conditioning Simple, Binary Associations  S-R association

More peaked gradient

Flat gradient

Most peaked gradient

Similar to Figure p. 234 in text

Less generalization; more discrimination

Least generalization; most discrimination

Non-Differential

Presence/Absence

Intradimensional

Page 23: The Associative Structure of Instrumental Conditioning Simple, Binary Associations  S-R association

Peak Shift

Page 24: The Associative Structure of Instrumental Conditioning Simple, Binary Associations  S-R association

Spence’s Theory of Discrimination Learning Following Intradimensional Training:

• For the S+ (or CS+), there is an excitatory generalization gradient around it. That is, S+ (or CS+) elicits the most responding; similar stimuli also elicit responding, with the greater the similarity, the greater the tendency to respond.

• For the S- (or CS-) there is an inhibitory gradient around it. The most inhibition is produced by S-, but similar stimuli also inhibit responding. The greater the similarity, the greater the tendency to inhibit responding.

Page 25: The Associative Structure of Instrumental Conditioning Simple, Binary Associations  S-R association

Peak Shift: Explained by Spence’s Theory of Discrimination Learning

• Peak Shift: – occurs when the peak of responding is shifted away

from the original S+ in a direction opposite to that of the S-.

• Spence's theory explains the Peak Shift:– There is an excitatory gradient around S+ and an

inhibitory gradient around S-.– Observed responding is determined by the sum of

the two gradients.– Peak shift occurs because the inhibitory gradient

around S- subtracts more from the excitation at S+ and between S+ and S- than it does from stimuli similar to S+ that are further away from S-.

Page 26: The Associative Structure of Instrumental Conditioning Simple, Binary Associations  S-R association
Page 27: The Associative Structure of Instrumental Conditioning Simple, Binary Associations  S-R association

S+

R G

S-

R G

Group 1

R

G

R

G

Group 2

S+

S+ S-S+ S-

S+ S-

B Y

S-

B Y

Intradimensional Shift

Extradimensional Shift

Phase 1 Phase 2 (test)