Biomedical subjects

Stefaan Vandorpe

Publications and source records attributed to Stefaan Vandorpe.

8 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2006

A comparison of cue competition in a simple and a complex design.

Recent evidence suggests that controlled reasoning processes play an important role in cue competition in human causal learning (see De Houwer, J., Beckers, T., & Vandorpe, S. (2005). Evidence for the role of higher-order reasoning processes in cue competition and other learning phenomena. Learning &Behavior, 33(2), 239-249, for a review). Until now, this evidence comes almost exclusively from studies with simple designs that involved only a limited number of cues. Little is known about the role of controlled reasoning processes when the design is more complex. It is important to examine this issue because the complexity of the design could determine the resources that are available for reasoning and thus the role that reasoning plays in cue competition. We directly compared cue competition in a simple and a complex design. The results showed that complexity of the design affected retrospective cue competition but not forward cue competition. More fine grained analyses with respect to retrospective cue competition showed that unovershadowing but not backward blocking differed significantly between complexity conditions.

Adult↗

PubMed2006

People want to see information that will help them make valid inferences in human causal learning.

According to higher order reasoning accounts of human causal learning (e.g., Lovibond, Been, Mitchell, Bouton, and Frohardt, 2003; Waldmann and Walker, 2005) ceiling effects in forward blocking (i.e., smaller blocking effects when the outcome occurs with a maximal intensity on A+ and AX+ trials) are due to the fact that people are uncertain about the causal status of a blocked cue X in a forward blocking design when the outcome is always fully present on A+ and AX+ trials. This should not be the case for a reduced overshadowing cue Y (B- trials followed by BY+ trials). We tested this hypothesis by asking participants which additional information they preferred to see after seeing all learning trials. Results showed (1) that all participants preferred to see the effect of the blocked cue X over seeing the effect of the reduced overshadowing cue Y (Experiment 1), and (2) that more participants preferred to see the blocked cue X on its own when the outcome on A+ and AX+ trials was fully present than when the outcome on those trials had a submaximalintensity (Experiment 2).

Association Learning↗

PubMed2005

The odd-even effect in addition: an analysis per problem type.

The odd-even effect is a well documented finding in the literature on mental arithmetic, at least for multiplication. It implies that false answers with the same parity as the correct answer are rejected more slowly than false answers with a different parity. For addition, this effect is not so well documented. The study by Krueger and Hallford (1984) is the only one that investigated odd-even effects for addition. However, they did not investigate odd-even effects per problem, even though there are indications that problem type can modulate odd-even effects for multiplication (Lemaire & Reder, 1999). Therefore, we wanted to get more insight into odd-even effects for addition by investigating odd-even effects per problem type. Our results extended the findings of Krueger and Hallford. First of all, we found an interaction between split and problem type. The most important and new result of present study, however, was a strong parity effect for E + E problems. We discuss our results in terms of two alternative explanations for odd-even effects, namely use of a parity rule on the one hand and familiarity with even outcomes on the other.

Adolescent↗

PubMed2005

Blocking is sensitive to causal structure in 4-year-old and 8-year-old children.

In a contingency learning task, 4-year-old and 8-year-old children had to predict the outcome displayed on the back of a card on the basis of cues presented on the front. The task was embedded in either a causal or a merely predictive scenario. Within this task, either a forward blocking or a backward blocking procedure was implemented. Blocking occurred in the causal but not in the predictive scenario. Moreover, blocking was affected by the scenario to the same extent in both age groups. The pattern of results was similar for forward and backward blocking. These results suggest that even young children are sensitive to the causal structure of a contingency learning task and that the occurrence of blocking in such a task defies an explanation in terms of associative learning theory.

Child↗

PubMed2005

Further evidence for the role of inferential reasoning in forward blocking.

Previous studies on human causal learning (De Houwer & Beckers, 2003; De Houwer, Beckers, & Glautier, 2002) showed that secondary task difficulty (performing an easy vs. a difficult secondary task during the main causal learning task) and ceiling information (outcome occurs with a maximal vs. submaximal intensity) had an influence on forward blocking (i.e., lower causal ratings for cue T when AT+ trials are preceded by A+ trials than when no A+ trials are presented). We extended these studies by also examining self-reports of participants about the reasons behind their causal ratings. Blocking was found only for participants who reported an appropriate blocking inference. Furthermore, secondary task difficulty and ceiling information influenced the number of participants who reported an appropriate blocking inference. These findings point to a major impact of inferential reasoning in human causal learning.

Humans↗

PubMed2005

Further evidence for the role of mode-independent short-term associations in spatial Simon effects.

We examined the conditions under which short-term associations between stimuli and responses can produce spatial Simon effects. On location-relevant trials, participants gave neutral responses (i.e., they uttered the nonsense syllable "bee" or "boo") on the basis of whether the presented word had the meaning of "left" or "right." On location-irrelevant trials, they gave the same responses on the basis of the color of left and right squares. Performance on the location-irrelevant trials was affected by the match between the irrelevant location information and the location to which the correct response was assigned on the location-relevant trials. Experiment 1 showed that this extrinsic Simon effect was found only when the words on the location-relevant trials came from two different languages. In Experiment 2, we found an extrinsic Simon effect even when participants only received instructions about how to respond on location-relevant trials but no such trials were actually presented. Our findings suggest that task demands determine whether short-term associations are mode specific or mode independent and confirm that such associations can be set up as the result of instructions only.

Association↗

PubMed2005

Evidence for the role of higher order reasoning processes in cue competition and other learning phenomena.

When people judge the contingency between atarget cue and an outcome, they also take into account the contingency between the outcome and other cues with which the target cue co-occurred. Several authors have argued that such cue competition effects are due to higher order reasoning processes. We review the evidence that supports this hypothesis and discuss whether higher order reasoning might also play a role in other learning phenomena.

Association Learning↗

PubMed2005

A comparison of forward blocking and reduced overshadowing in human causal learning.

In this study, we directly compared forward blocking with reduced overshadowing in a human causal learning study using an A+, B- (first learning stage), AX+, BY+, KL+ (second learning stage) design. The results showed that reduced overshadowing was significantly stronger than forward blocking. These results are problematic for at least some associative learning models but were predicted on the basis of higher order reasoning accounts of cue competition in human causal learning.

Association↗