Biomedical subjects

Harald Lachnit

Publications and source records attributed to Harald Lachnit.

25 records · Page 2Linked to original sources

PubMed2002

Are rules applied in Pavlovian electrodermal conditioning with humans general or outcome specific?

There is growing evidence that in human skin conductance response (SCR) conditioning positive patterning (A-, B-, AB+) and negative pattering (A+, B+, AB-) are solved by applying two different rules. The present experiments investigated whether the representations of such rules are specific or general with regard to outcomes and response systems. In Experiment 1, we investigated SCR and eyelid conditioning with different types of training administered in an interleaved fashion. We found that positive patterning SCR conditioning interfered with negative patterning SCR conditioning, whereas eyeblink conditioning had no effect on SCR conditioning. In Experiment 2, in which eyeblink and SCR conditioning were administered in sequential fashion, the same result was obtained. We conclude that the rules involved in solving patterning tasks might be specific to outcomes and/or response systems.

Adult↗

PubMed2002

Responding under time pressure: testing two animal learning models and a model of visual categorization.

Two experiments are reported, which employed a Pavlovian eyelid conditioning procedure with human participants. The experiments tested the predictions of three models of the time-course of processing under time pressure. These were the extended generalized context model (Lamberts, 1998), and two variants of the Rescorla-Wagner model (Rescorla & Wagner, 1972), which were activated in cascade mode. Reinforcement schedules in the experiments were equivalent either to an AND rule or to an XOR rule. The time available for processing the conditioned stimulus and initiating a conditioned response was manipulated by varying the interval from the onset of the conditioned stimulus to the onset of the unconditioned stimulus. The results were in accord with the predictions of one of the two variants of the Rescorla-Wagner model.

Adult↗

PubMed1988

Convergent validation of information processing constructs with Pavlovian methodology.

These two experiments introduce a new nonverbal measure of stimulus structure by merging Garner's (1974) distinction of separable and integral stimulus properties with the field of Pavlovian conditioning. According to one rule, two sets of stimulus (separable vs. integral) were constructed. In each experiment a differential compound conditioning procedure was used with one group of subjects who were trained with a subset of the separable material and then were tested with an unfamiliar subset. The same procedure was used with a second group but with integral materials. Both experiments showed a reversal of conditioning effects, depending on the properties of the stimuli. Separable compounds showed results as predicted by elementaristic conditioning theories: The associative values of the elements summed up. With integral compounds, the associative values of the elements were irrelevant. Instead, integral compounds were processed and classified primarily on the basis of similarity.

Adult↗

PubMedDate not supplied

The effect of similarity between elemental stimuli and compounds in olfactory patterning discriminations.

We studied the ability of honeybees to discriminate between single odorants and binary olfactory mixtures. We analyzed the effect of the number of common elements between these two stimulus classes on olfactory discrimination. We used olfactory conditioning of the honeybees' proboscis extension reflex (PER), a paradigm in which odors can be associated with a reinforcement of sucrose solution. Bees were asked to discriminate reinforced from nonreinforced olfactory stimuli. They were trained with two elemental odors (A and B) versus a binary olfactory mixture. The mixture was either AB (group 2CE, two common elements), AC (group 1CE, one common element A), or CD (group 0CE, no common element). Three groups followed a positive patterning schedule (mixture reinforced and elements nonreinforced: groups 2CE+, 1CE+, and 0CE+) and three other groups a negative patterning schedule (mixture nonreinforced and elements reinforced: groups 2CE-, 1CE-, and 0CE-). We showed that a reduction of similarity (number of common elements) between elemental odors and compounds enhanced the ability to discriminate elements from compounds and that the kind of compound processing used by the bees supports theories that assume nonelemental compound processing (i.e., that exclude the mere summation of the elemental associative strengths upon compound presentation).

Animals↗

PubMedDate not supplied

Successive olfactory reversal learning in honeybees.

Honeybees Apis mellifera can associate an originally neutral odor with a reinforcement of sucrose solution. Forward pairings of odor and reinforcement enable the odor to release the proboscis extension reflex in consecutive tests. Bees can also be conditioned differentially: They learn to respond to a reinforced odor and not to a nonreinforced one. They can also learn to reverse their choice. Here we ask whether honeybees can learn successive olfactory differential conditioning tasks involving different overlapping pairs of odors. The conditioning schedules were established in order to train the animals with 3, 2, 1, or 0 reversals previous to a last differential conditioning phase in which two additional reversals were present. We studied whether or not successive reversal learning is possible and whether or not learning olfactory discrimination reversals affects the solving of subsequent discrimination reversals. Therefore we compared the responses of bees that had experienced reversals with those of bees that had not experienced such reversals when both are confronted with a new reversal situation. In experiment 1 we showed that bees that had experienced three previous reversals were better in solving the final reversal task than bees with no previous reversal experience. In experiment 2, we showed that one reversal learning is enough for bees to perform better in the final reversal task. The successive different reversals trained in our experiments resemble the natural foraging situation in which a honeybee forager has to switch successively from an initial floral species to different ones. The fact that experiencing such changes seems to improve a bee's performance in dealing with further new exploited food sources has therefore an adaptive impact for the individual and for the colony as a whole.

Animals↗

PubMedDate not supplied

A modified version of the unique cue theory accounts for olfactory compound processing in honeybees.

We investigated the capability of honeybees to discriminate between single odorants, binary olfactory mixtures, and ternary olfactory mixtures in olfactory conditioning of the proboscis extension reflex. In Experiment 1, three single odorants (A+, B+, and C+) and three binary mixtures of these odors (AB+, AC+, and BC+) were reinforced while the ternary compound, consisting of all three odors (ABC-), was nonreinforced. In Experiment 2, only one single odorant (A+) and one binary olfactory compound (BC+) were reinforced while the ternary compound (ABC-) consisting of the single odor and the binary compound was nonreinforced. We studied whether bees can solve these problems and whether the course of differentiation can be predicted by the unique cue theory, a modified unique cue theory, or Pearce's configural theory. Honeybees were not able to differentiate reinforced from nonreinforced stimuli in Experiment 1. However, summation to ABC observed at the beginning of training contradicts the predictions of Pearce's configural theory. In Experiment 2, differentiation between the single odorant A and the ternary compound developed more easily than between the binary compound BC and ABC. This pattern of differentiation is in line with a modified unique cue theory and Pearce's configural theory. Summation to ABC at the beginning of training, however, again was at odds with Pearce's configural theory. Thus, olfactory compound processing in honeybees can best be explained by a modified unique cue theory.

Animals↗

PubMedDate not supplied

Olfactory blocking and odorant similarity in the honeybee.

Blocking occurs when previous training with a stimulus A reduces (blocks) subsequent learning about a stimulus B, when A and B are trained in compound. The question of whether blocking exists in olfactory conditioning of proboscis extension reflex (PER) in honeybees is under debate. The last published accounts on blocking in honeybees state that blocking occurs when odors A and B are similar (the "similarity hypothesis"). We have tested this hypothesis using four odors (1-octanol, 1-nonanol, eugenol, and limonene) chosen on the basis of their chemical and physiological similarity (experiment 1). We established a generalization matrix that measured perceptual similarity. Bees in the "block group" were first trained with an odor A and, in the second phase, with the mixture AB. Bees in the "novel group" (control group) were first trained with an odor N and, in the second phase, with the mixture AB. After conditioning, bees in both groups were tested for their response to B. We assayed all 24 possible combinations for the four odors standing for A, B, and N. We found blocking in four cases, augmentation in two cases, and no difference in 18 cases; odor similarity could not account for these results. We also repeated the experiments with those six odor combinations that gave rise to the similarity hypothesis (experiment 2: 1-hexanol, 1-octanol, geraniol) and found augmentation in one and no effect in five cases. Thus, blocking is not a consistent phenomenon, nor does it depend on odor similarity.

Analysis of Variance↗