The Kamin Blocking Effect in Sign and Goal Trackers

The discovery of the Kamin blocking effect suggested that surprise or prediction errors are necessary for associative learning. This suggestion led to the development of a new theoretical framework for associative learning relying on prediction error rather than just temporal contiguity between events. However, many recent studies have failed to replicate the blocking effect, questioning the central role of blocking in associative learning theory. Here, we test the expression of Kamin blocking in rats that either approach and interact with the conditioned cue (sign trackers) or approach and interact with the reward location (goal trackers) during appetitive classical conditioning. The behavioral task involved three phases: classical conditioning of a lever cue, conditioning of a compound of the lever cue plus an auditory cue, and testing response to presentation of the auditory cue in extinction. The results show that only sign trackers express the blocking effect. Thus, groups that include goal trackers are less likely to be able to replicate the blocking effect. Our findings support the idea that sign and goal tracking responses arise as a result of distinct parallel learning processes. Psychological theories of learning that incorporate these parallel learning processes and their interactions will provide a better framework for understanding the blocking effect and related associative learning phenomena.

[1]  R. D'Hooge,et al.  The elusive nature of the blocking effect: 15 failures to replicate. , 2016, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[2]  J. Hollerman,et al.  Dopamine neurons report an error in the temporal prediction of reward during learning , 1998, Nature Neuroscience.

[3]  B. Campbell,et al.  Punishment and aversive behavior , 1969 .

[4]  Blocking of first- and second-order autoshaping in pigeons , 1978 .

[5]  T. Robinson,et al.  Dissociating the Predictive and Incentive Motivational Properties of Reward-Related Cues Through the Study of Individual Differences , 2009, Biological Psychiatry.

[6]  P. Bronstein,et al.  The development of habituation in the rat , 1974 .

[7]  W. Schultz,et al.  Importance of unpredictability for reward responses in primate dopamine neurons. , 1994, Journal of neurophysiology.

[8]  Peter Dayan,et al.  A Neural Substrate of Prediction and Reward , 1997, Science.

[9]  T. Robinson,et al.  The role of dopamine in the accumbens core in the expression of Pavlovian‐conditioned responses , 2012, The European journal of neuroscience.

[10]  A. Delamater,et al.  Sign-tracking is an expectancy-mediated behavior that relies on prediction error mechanisms , 2018, Learning & memory.

[11]  R. Wightman,et al.  Associative learning mediates dynamic shifts in dopamine signaling in the nucleus accumbens , 2007, Nature Neuroscience.

[12]  Blocking, unblocking, and overexpectation in autoshaping with pigeons. , 1996, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[13]  Failures to Replicate Blocking Are Surprising and Informative—Reply to Soto (2018) , 2018, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[14]  J. Wickens,et al.  The nucleus accumbens and inhibition in the ventral tegmental area play a causal role in the Kamin blocking effect , 2020, The European journal of neuroscience.

[15]  Josiah R. Boivin,et al.  A Causal Link Between Prediction Errors, Dopamine Neurons and Learning , 2013, Nature Neuroscience.

[16]  J. Ayres,et al.  Stimulus-reinforcer and response-reinforcer relations in the control of conditioned appetitive headpoking (goal tracking) in rats. , 1979 .

[17]  W. K. Honig,et al.  Surprise Value of Food Determines Its Effectiveness as a Reinforcer. , 1976 .

[18]  G. Davey,et al.  Autoshaping in the rat: Effects of omission on the form of the response. , 1981, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

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

[20]  T. Robinson,et al.  A selective role for dopamine in reward learning , 2010, Nature.

[21]  Fabian A. Soto,et al.  Contemporary Associative Learning Theory Predicts Failures to Obtain Blocking: Comment on Maes et al. (2016) , 2018, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[22]  G. G. Cleland,et al.  Topography of signal-centered behavior in the rat: Effects of deprivation state and reinforcer type. , 1982, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[23]  I. Pavlov Conditioned Reflexes: An Investigation of the Physiological Activity of the Cerebral Cortex , 1929 .

[24]  Joshua L. Jones,et al.  Dopamine transients are sufficient and necessary for acquisition of model-based associations , 2017, Nature Neuroscience.

[25]  P. Holland,et al.  Differential effects of omission contingencies on various components of Pavlovian appetitive conditioned responding in rats. , 1979, Journal of experimental psychology. Animal behavior processes.

[26]  P. Holland,et al.  Blocking in autoshaped lever-pressing procedures with rats , 2014, Learning & behavior.