This preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.
Unformatted text preview: Conditioned and Unconditioned Stimuli Become Associated?
1) Group 1 2) Group 2 The Kamin Blocking Effect Phase 1 Phase 2
Light + Tone + Light + Tone and Light + Test
Light/ToneLight/Tone- The Kamin Blocking Effect Rescorla & Wagner (1972) Model
• The effectiveness of an unconditioned stimulus is determined by it “surprisingness” • An event is surprising when it is unexpected • ΔV = k(Lamda – V)
– Lamda = asymptote of learning supported by a US – V = associative value of stimuli that precede the US – K = salience of the CS and US The Comparator Hypothesis
• During Conditioning 3 associations are formed
– Target CS and the US – Target CS and other stimuli (e.g., contextual) – Other stimuli and the US • Conditioned responding is determined by the relative strength of the 3 associations
– Performance Model The Comparator Hypothesis
Target CS 1 2 Comparison Comparator Stimuli 3 Indirect US Representation CR US Representation The Comparator Hypothesis and the Blocking Effect
Target CS “Tone” 2 Comparison Comparator Stimuli “Light” 3 Indirect US Representation “Shock” CR “Fear” 1 US Representation “Shock”...
View Full Document
This note was uploaded on 03/10/2010 for the course PSYCH 110 taught by Professor Rauhut during the Spring '10 term at Dickinson.
- Spring '10
- Classical Conditioning