Evidence for the application of rules in Pavlovian electrodermal conditioning with humans

Two Pavlovian SCR conditioning experiments investigated interference effects in sequential training of positive and negative patterning discriminations in humans. In Experiment 1, positive patterning (A-, B-, AB+) was trained in Phase 1, immediately followed by a negative patterning schedule (C+, D+, CD-). We predicted that human participants would learn a specific numerosity rule in positive patterning, which interferes with the subsequent negative patterning schedule. In Experiment 2, negative patterning (C+, D+, CD-) was trained in Phase 1, followed by a positive patterning schedule (A-, B-, AB+) in Phase 2. Because human participants would learn an abstract 'separate-versus-together'- or 'opposite'-rule to solve the negative patterning discrimination in Phase 1, there should be less interference in positive patterning in Phase 2 where the separate/together-rule could be applied, too. In both experiments, the initial patterning discriminations were acquired successfully. In Experiment 1, human participants totally failed to solve the Phase 2 discrimination, while in Experiment 2 appropriate response differentiation developed in Phase 2. Thus, without pre-experience human participants seem to utilize a specific numerosity-rule in positive patterning and a separate/together-rule in negative patterning.

[1]  S. Geisser,et al.  On methods in the analysis of profile data , 1959 .

[2]  J. Furedy,et al.  Contingency theory and classical autonomic excitatory and inhibitory conditioning: some problems of assessment and interpretation. , 1975, Psychophysiology.

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

[4]  P. Venables,et al.  Direct measurement of skin conductance: a proposal for standardization. , 1971, Psychophysiology.

[5]  R. Rescorla,et al.  Analysis of the unique cue in configural discriminations. , 1985, Journal of experimental psychology. Animal behavior processes.

[6]  U. Neisser,et al.  Hierarchies in concept attainment. , 1962, Journal of experimental psychology.

[7]  I. Gormezano,et al.  Configuration and combination laws in conditioning with compound stimuli. , 1980, Psychological bulletin.

[8]  Douglas A. Williams,et al.  INFLUENCE OF PAST EXPERIENCE ON THE CODING OF COMPOUND STIMULI , 1999 .

[9]  H. Lachnit,et al.  Configural olfactory learning in honeybees: negative and positive patterning discrimination. , 2001, Learning & memory.

[10]  E. Kehoe.  A layered network model of associative learning: learning to learn and configuration. , 1988, Psychological review.

[11]  H. Lachnit,et al.  Positive and negative patterning in human classical skin conductance response conditioning , 1993 .

[12]  H. Lachnit,et al.  What is learned in patterning discriminations? Further tests of configural accounts of associative learning in human electrodermal conditioning , 2001, Biological Psychology.

[13]  R. L. Solso.  Theories in cognitive psychology : the Loyola symposium , 1975 .

[14]  D. Shanks,et al.  FEATURE- AND RULE-BASED GENERALIZATION IN HUMAN ASSOCIATIVE LEARNING , 1998 .

[15]  A. R. Wagner,et al.  Negative patterning in classical conditioning: Summation of response tendencies to isolable and configurai components , 1972 .

[16]  H. Lachnit,et al.  Experimental manipulation of a unique cue in Pavlovian SCR conditioning with humans , 2000, Biological Psychology.

[17]  K. Spence,et al.  Essays in neobehaviorism : a memorial volume to Kenneth W. Spence , 1971 .

[18]  L. E. Bourne,et al.  ATTRIBUTE- AND RULE-LEARNING ASPECTS OF CONCEPTUAL BEHAVIOR. , 1965, Psychological review.

[19]  H. Kimmel,et al.  A mutual inductance shocker , 1980 .

[20]  John T. Cacioppo,et al.  Techniques in Psychophysiology , 1980 .

[21]  H. Lachnit,et al.  Further investigations of stimulus coding in nonlinear discrimination problems , 2000, Biological Psychology.

[22]  E. Kehoe,et al.  Summation and configuration in patterning schedules with the rat and rabbit , 1985 .

[23]  Douglas A. Williams,et al.  Configural and elemental strategies in predictive learning. , 1994 .

[24]  E. Kehoe,et al.  Cross-modal transfer as a function of similarities between training tasks in classical conditioning of the rabbit , 1985 .

[25]  R. Rescorla.  Evidence for "unique stimulus" account of configural conditioning. , 1973 .

[26]  R. Rescorla.  "Configural" conditioning in discrete-trial bar pressing. , 1972, Journal of comparative and physiological psychology.