Learning theories FINAL STUDY GUIDE


Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
STUDY GUIDE FOR THE FINAL Concepts you should know The peak shift effect (pp 282-283; Lec of 11/15) Intradimensional discriminations (a training procedure in which the S+ and S- differ only in terms of the value of one stimulus feature. i.e. 550 nm light v.s. 590 nm light) can produce a counterintuitive phenomenon – peak-shift effect. (a displacement of the highest rate of responding in a stimulus generalization gradient away from the S+ in a direction opposite the S-) (i.e. 550 nm = S+, 590 nm = S-… shift toward 540 nm) Discrimination vs generalization (pp 259-261; Lec of 11/8) Discrimination – differential responding in the presence of 2 or more stimuli Generalization – opposite to discrimination… an organism is responding (in a same fashion) to the test stimuli that are different from the cues that were present during training. (i.e. bird pecks at 570 nm light also pecks at 580 nm light) The 2-process theory of avoidance (pp 338-339; Lec of 11/22) Avoidance procedure – negative contingency and aversive stimulus. If you make the appropriate avoidance responses, you will not fall, get rained on… no particular pleasure is produced… just simply not get hurt. 2 process theory is originally developed to explain discriminated avoidance learning that presumes the operation of 2 mechanisms: classical conditioning of fear to the warning signal (CS), and instrumental reinforcement of the avoidance response through termination of the warning signal and consequent fear reduction. 1. classical conditioning of fear to the CS (conditioned fear as a source of motivation for avoidance learning 2. instrumental reinforcement of the avoidance response through fear reduction. Those 2 depends on each other…instrumental reinforcement through fear reduction is not possible until fear has become conditioned to the CS. Thus, according to the 2-factor theory, the animal is making the instrumental response R not to avoid the aversive stimulus, but rather to escape from fear . The partial reinforcement extinction effect and the theories that have been proposed to explain it (Lec of 11/17; p 323) A. Amsel PREE (partial reinforcement extinction effect) – greater persistence in
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
instrumental responding in extinction after partial reinforcement training… than after continuous reinforcement training (reward everytime… not just some of the time) Also… PREE is related to the rapid maturation of the hippocampus Reinstatement (p 311) Reinstatement- recovery of conditioned behavior produced by exposures to the US. Recovery of excitatory responding to an extinguished stimulus produced by exposure to the US. i.e. learning an aversion to fish because you got sick after eating fish. However aversion is then extinguished by nibbling on fish without getting sick on a number of occasions. You might even enjoy eating fish because of this extinction experience. Reinstatement suggest that if you were to become sick again for some reason, your aversion to fish would return even if your illness had nothing to do with eating this particular food.
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Page1 / 21


This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online