Overshadowing as a function of trial number: Dynamics of first- and second-order comparator effects

In two conditioned lick suppression experiments with rats, we examined the permanence of the overshadowing effect as a function of the number of compound reinforced training trials. In Experiment 1, robust overshadowing was observed following 4 compound-US pairings but dissipated with 36 pairings. Overshadowing decreased because responding to the overshadowed stimulus increased, not because responding by the control group decreased. This dissipation was stimulus specific and not attributable to a response ceiling. Experiment 2 extended the generality of the effect to a sensory preconditioning design and further demonstrated that overshadowing lost through many compound-US pairings was restored by posttraining extinction of the training context. The results are explicable in terms of the extended comparator hypothesis (Denniston, Savastano, & Miller, 2001) under the assumption that the impacts of first- and second-order comparator processes grow differentially as a function of number of trials.

[1]  J. Ayres,et al.  Blocked and overshadowed stimuli are weakened in their ability to serve as blockers and second-order reinforcers in Pavlovian fear conditioning. , 1999, Journal of experimental psychology. Animal behavior processes.

[2]  L. Kamin.  Predictability, surprise, attention, and conditioning , 1967 .

[3]  W. Bellingham,et al.  Attenuation of overshadowing as a function of nondifferential compound conditioning trials , 1981 .

[4]  J. Pearce,et al.  A model for Pavlovian learning: Variations in the effectiveness of conditioned but not of unconditioned stimuli. , 1980 .

[5]  Edgar H Vogel,et al.  A componential view of configural cues in generalization and discrimination in Pavlovian conditioning , 2000, Behavioural Brain Research.

[6]  J. Pearce.  A model for stimulus generalization in Pavlovian conditioning. , 1987, Psychological review.

[7]  N. Mackintosh.  A Theory of Attention: Variations in the Associability of Stimuli with Reinforcement , 1975 .

[8]  R. R. Miller,et al.  Temporal encoding as a determinant of overshadowing. , 1998, Journal of experimental psychology. Animal behavior processes.

[9]  C. Gallistel,et al.  Time, rate, and conditioning. , 2000, Psychological review.

[10]  Ralph R. Miller,et al.  Trial spacing is a determinant of cue interaction. , 2003, Journal of experimental psychology. Animal behavior processes.

[11]  Ralph R. Miller,et al.  Recovery of an overshadowed association achieved by extinction of the overshadowing stimulus. , 1985 .

[12]  E. Wasserman,et al.  Cue Competition in Causality Judgments: The Role of Nonpresentation of Compound Stimulus Elements , 1994 .

[13]  Ralph R. Miller,et al.  Recovery from one-trial overshadowing , 1999, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[14]  Overshadowing and latent inhibition counteract each other: Support for the comparator hypothesis. , 1998 .

[15]  E. Wasserman,et al.  Backward Blocking and Recovery from Overshadowing in Human Causal Judgement: The Role of Within-compound Associations , 1998, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. B, Comparative and physiological psychology.

[16]  R. Bolles,et al.  A nonassociative aspect of overshadowing , 1981 .

[17]  R. Rescorla,et al.  Potentiation rather than overshadowing in flavor-aversion learning: an analysis in terms of within-compound associations. , 1980, Journal of experimental psychology. Animal behavior processes.

[18]  W. Hankins,et al.  Flavor-illness aversions: potentiation of odor by taste in rats. , 1979, Behavioral and neural biology.

[19]  P. Holland.  Overshadowing and blocking as acquisition deficits: no recovery after extinction of overshadowing or blocking cues. , 1999, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. B, Comparative and physiological psychology.

[20]  R. Rescorla,et al.  A theory of Pavlovian conditioning : Variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and nonreinforcement , 1972 .

[21]  P. C. Price,et al.  Judgmental overshadowing: Further evidence of cue interaction in contingency judgment , 1993, Memory & cognition.

[22]  A. Blaisdell,et al.  Cue Competition as a Retrieval Deficit , 2003 .

[23]  R. R. Bush,et al.  A Mathematical Model for Simple Learning , 1951 .

[24]  N. Mackintosh,et al.  An elemental model of associative learning: I. Latent inhibition and perceptual learning , 2000 .

[25]  G. Cicala,et al.  Increased conditioning in rats to a blocked CS after the first compound trial , 1988 .

[26]  Ralph R. Miller,et al.  The comparator hypothesis: A response rule for the expression of associations. , 1988 .

[27]  E. Kehoe.  Overshadowing and summation in compound stimulus conditioning of the rabbit's nictitating membrane response. , 1982, Journal of experimental psychology. Animal behavior processes.

[28]  Ralph R. Miller,et al.  Biological Significance as a Determinant of Cue Competition , 1996 .

[29]  R. R. Miller,et al.  Responding to a conditioned stimulus depends on the current associative status of other cues present during training of that specific stimulus. , 1992, Journal of experimental psychology. Animal behavior processes.