Biomedical subjects

H Matute

Publications and source records attributed to H Matute.

5 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed1997

CSs and USs: what's the difference?

Differences in processing representations of conditioned and unconditioned stimuli (CSs and USs) may result from either their temporal order in training (i.e., CSs precede USs) or the greater biological significance of USs. The CS- and US-preexposure effects were used to probe this question. These effects are similar except that context extinction between preexposure and training more readily attenuates the US- than the CS-preexposure effect. In Experiments 1, 2, and 5, context extinction following preexposure to the stimulus that later served as Event 1 in Event 1-->Event 2 pairings alleviated the response deficit due to Event 1 preexposure if Event 1 was biologically significant. In Experiments 3 and 4, context extinction alleviated the response deficit due to Event 2 preexposure if Event 2 was biologically significant. Thus, biological significance and not temporal order determines how a representation will be processed.

Acoustic Stimulation↗

PubMed1997

Blocking of subsequent and antecedent events.

Stimulus competition (e.g., blocking) has been observed between antecedent events (i.e., conditioned stimuli or potential causes), but recent evidence within the human causal learning literature suggests that it could also be obtained between subsequent events (i.e., unconditioned stimuli or potential effects). The present research tested this hypothesis with rat subjects. To avoid confounding the antecedent versus subsequent variable with the affective value of the events involved (i.e., unconditioned stimuli are ordinarily of greater affective value than conditioned stimuli), a preparation was used in which antecedent and subsequent events all lacked affective value during the blocking phases of the study. This was achieved through the use of sensory preconditioning. Blocking of subsequent events as well as antecedent events was observed. The challenge to most associative theories that is provided by blocking of subsequent events is discussed.

Affect↗

PubMed1996

Biological significance in forward and backward blocking: resolution of a discrepancy between animal conditioning and human causal judgment.

Similarities between Pavlovian conditioning in nonhumans and causal judgment by humans suggest that similar processes operate in these situations. Notably absent among the similarities is backward blocking (i.e., retrospective devaluation of a signal due to increased valuation of another signal that was present during training), which has been observed in causal judgment by humans but not in Pavlovian responding by animals. The authors used rats to determine if this difference arises from the target cue being biologically significant in the Pavlovian case but not in causal judgment. They used a sensory preconditioning procedure in Experiments 1 and 2, in which the target cue retained low biological significance during the treatment, and obtained backward blocking. The authors found in Experiment 3 that forward blocking also requires the target cue to be of low biological significance. Thus, low biological significance is a necessary condition for a stimulus to be vulnerable to blocking.

Animals↗

PubMed1996

Test question modulates cue competition between causes and between effects.

The research reported in this article replicated the well-established phenomenon of competition between causes (C) as well as the more controversial presence and absence of competition between effects (E). The test question was identified as a crucial factor leading to each outcome. Competition between causes was obtained when the test question asked about the probability of E given C, p(E/C), implicitly compared with the probability of E given some alternative cause, p(E/C'). competition between effects was obtained when the test question asked about p(C/E) implicitly compared with p(C/E'). Under these conditions, effects competed for diagnostic value just as causes competed for predictive value. Additionally, some conditions in which neither causes nor effects competed were identified. These results suggest a bidirectional and noncompetitive learning process, the contents of which can be used in different ways (competitively or noncompetitively and forward or backward) as a function of test demands.

Causality↗

PubMed1996

A behavioural preparation for the study of human Pavlovian conditioning.

Conditioned suppression is a useful technique for assessing whether subjects have learned a CS-US association, but it is difficult to use in humans because of the need for an aversive US. The purpose of this research was to develop a non-aversive procedure that would produce suppression. Subjects learned to press the space bar of a computer as part of a video game, but they had to stop pressing whenever a visual US appeared, or they would lose points. In Experiment 1, we used an A+/B- discrimination design: The US always followed Stimulus A and never followed Stimulus B. Although no information about the existence of CSs was given to the subjects, suppression ratio results showed a discrimination learning curve-that is, subjects learned to suppress responding in anticipation of the US when Stimulus A was present but not during the presentations of Stimulus B. Experiment 2 explored the potential of this preparation by using two different instruction sets and assessing post-experimental judgements of CS A and CS B in addition to suppression ratios. The results of these experiments suggest that conditioned suppression can be reliably and conveniently used in the human laboratory, providing a bridge between experiments on animal conditioning and experiments on human judgements of causality.

Animals↗