Biomedical subjects

Susan E. Brandon

Publications and source records attributed to Susan E. Brandon.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2003

Stimulus representation in SOP: I. Theoretical rationalization and some implications.

THE SOP MODEL [INFORMATION PROCESSING IN ANIMALS: Memory Mechanisms, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 1981, p. 5] is described in terms of its assumed stimulus representation, network characteristics, and rules for learning and performance. It is shown how several Pavlovian conditioning phenomena can be accounted on the basis of the model's presumed stimulus representation. Challenges to the SOP model prompted the adoption of a componential stimulus representation in: AESOP [Contemporary Learning Theories: Pavlovian Conditioning and the Status of Traditional Learning Theory, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 1989, p. 149], this was a dual representation of the unconditioned stimulus (US), and C-SOP [Contemporary Learning: Theory and Application, Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, 2001, p. 23], this was a multi-component representation of the conditioned stimulus (CS). The assumption of a componential CS representation, where large numbers of elements can be separately learned about, necessitated a modification of the learning rule. The modified, "constrained" rule was found useful to explain timing characteristics of Pavlovian conditioned responses, as well as data offered by Rescorla [J. Exp. Psychol. Anim. Behav. Process. 26 (2000) 428; Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 54B (2001) 53; J. Exp. Psychol. Anim. Behav. Process. 28 (2002) 163] showing that stimuli trained in compound do not share the same quantitative fate.

Journal Article↗

PubMed2003

Stimulus representation in SOP: II. An application to inhibition of delay.

The componential extension of SOP accounts for conditioned response (CR) timing in Pavlovian conditioning by assuming that learning accrues with relative independence to stimulus elements that are differentially occasioned during the duration of the conditioned stimulus (CS). SOP, using a competitive learning rule and the assumption that temporal learning emerges via resolution of what is equivalent to an "AX+BX-" discrimination, predicts a progressive increase in the latency of the CR over training, or what Pavlov refer to as "inhibition of delay." Other componential models, which use noncompetitive learning rules, do not predict inhibition of delay. Either type of model makes the prediction indicated, independently of the length of the CS-unconditioned stimulus (US) interval. We report two experiments that demonstrated inhibition of delay when rabbits were trained with relatively long, but not with short, CS-US intervals. To account for this divergence, we assumed that the SOP stimulus trace involves two kinds of elements, some with a temporally distributed pattern of activity over the duration of the CS duration, and some with a randomly distributed pattern. This stimulus representation, not only allows for inhibition of delay with long but not short CS-US intervals, but in combination with SOP's performance rule deduces CR's with "Weber variability."

Journal Article↗