Robert P. Cole

Temporal encoding in trace conditioning

Conditioned lick suppression in rats was used to explore the role of timing in trace conditioning. In Experiment 1, two groups of rats were exposed to pairings of a CS (CS1) with a US, under conditions in which the interstimulus interval (ISI) that separated CS1 offset and US onset was either 0 or 5 sec. Two additional groups were also exposed to the same CS1→US pairings with either a 0 or a 5-sec ISI, and then received “backward” second-order conditioning in which CS1 was immediately followed by a novel CS2 (i.e., CS1→CS2). A trace conditioning deficit was observed in that the CS1 conditioned with the 5-sec gap supported less excitatory responding than the CS1 conditioned with the 0-sec gap. However, CS2 elicited more conditioned responding in the group trained with the 5-sec CS1-US gap than in the group trained with the 0-sec CS1-US gap. Thus, the CS1-US interval had inverse effects on first- and second-order conditioned responding. Experiment 2 was conducted as a sensory preconditioning analogue to Experiment 1. In Experiment 2, rats received the CS1?CS2 pairings prior to the CS1→US pairings (in which CS1 was again conditioned with either a 0 or a 5-sec ISI). Experiment 2 showed a dissociation between first- and second-order conditioned responding similar to that observed in Experiment 1. These outcomes are not compatible with the view that differences in responding to CSs conditioned with different ISIs are mediated exclusively by differences in associative value. The results are discussed in the framework of the temporal coding hypothesis, according to which temporal relationships between events are encoded in elementary associations.

Temporal integration in second-order conditioning and sensory preconditioning

Lick suppression experiments with rats revealed that the magnitude of both second-order conditioning (Experiment 1) and sensory preconditioning (Experiment 2) was superior when that conditioning was based on backward (US→CS) relative to forward (CS→US) first-order pairings of a CS and US. The superiority of backward relative to forward first-order conditioning on suppression to the higher order cues can be understood by assuming that the magnitude of higher order conditioning was determined by a memory representation of the higher order cues that provided information about the expected temporal location of the US. The results suggest that temporal information such as order between paired CSs and USs was encoded, preserved, and integrated with memory for the higher order stimuli. The relevance of these findings to memory integration in Pavlovian learning, the temporal coding hypothesis (Barnet, Arnold, & Miller, 1991; Matzel, Held, & Miller, 1988), backward excitatory conditioning, and the associative structure that underlies second-order Pavlovian fear conditioning are discussed.

Effect of relative stimulus validity: Learning or performance deficit?

This research examined whether the effect of relative stimulus validity (A.R. Wagner, F.A. Logan, K. Haberlandt, & T. Price, 1968) is a deficit of acquisition or performance. Experiment 1 demonstrated the relative validity effect using rats in a conditioned lick suppression. task. A target cue trained in the presence of another cue that was a more valid predictor of reinforcement exhibited less behavioral control than a target cue that had been trained in the presence of an equally valid predictor of reinforcement. In Experiment 2, the more valid predictor was extinguished after training. This manipulation increased responding to the target cue, thereby attenuating the effect of low relative validity. This outcome suggests that the relative validity effect is a performance deficit. In addition, recovery from the relative validity deficit was specific to the particular target stimulus that was trained in the presence of the subsequently extinguished cue.

The Role of Temporal Relationships in the Transfer of Conditioned Inhibition

Two experiments with rats investigated the temporal relationships under which conditioned inhibition will transfer to an independently conditioned excitor (CS) in a summation test. Experiment 1 trained 2 simultaneous inhibitors with either a trace or delay excitatory CS. Transfer of inhibitory behavioral control depended on the temporal relationship of the transfer CS to the unconditioned stimulus (US). Experiment 2 extended these findings by training 2 inhibitors (1 simultaneous and 1 serial) with a single delay excitatory CS. Again, testing with trace and delay transfer CSs found that transfer of inhibitor control depended on the temporal relationship of the transfer CS to the US. In both studies, maximal inhibition was observed when the inhibitor signaled US omission at the same time as the transfer excitor signaled US presentation. The results are discussed in terms of the temporal coding hypothesis.

Reminder-induced attenuation of the effect of relative stimulus validity

The roles of deficient acquisition and deficient expression of learned information in the effect of relative stimulus validity were examined using rats in a conditioned lick suppression paradigm. Recovery from the effect without further pairings of the conditioned stimulus (CS) and the unconditioned stimulus (US) would favor an interpretation of the relative validity effect based on a latent CS-US association as distinct from a failure to acquire the CS-US association. As a potential recovery manipulation, “reminder” treatments, consisting of the US alone (Experiment 1) or the CS alone (Experiment 2), were administered following relative validity training. In both cases, subjects for which the CS target was of low relative predictive validity exhibited enhanced responding relative to appropriate controls. Additionally, Experiment 2 showed that the amelioration of the relative validity deficit was stimulus specific. Thus, the results of these experiments support previous suggestions that the performance deficit resulting from low relative stimulus validity is due, at least in part, to a failure to express acquired information (Cole, Barnet, & Miller, 1995a).

Recovery from one-trial overshadowing.

Prevailing models of associative learning can all account for multitrial overshadowing. However, they fail to account for one-trial overshadowing, which is ordinarily explained in terms of distraction of the subject by the more salient of two simultaneously trained cues from the less salient cue, which interferes with associative acquisition. In the present study, we demonstrate that recovery from overshadowing can be obtained through two techniques that have previously been found to restore responding to overshadowed cues in multitrial training situations. Specifically, recovery from one-trial overshadowing was obtained by extinguishing the overshadowing stimulus and also by administering a posttraining reminder treatment consisting of brief exposure to the overshadowed cue. The similarity of these observations to those in multitrial overshadowing suggests that one-trial and multitrial overshadowing arise from a common underlying mechanism and further augments the view that all cue competition is due (at least in part) to a failure to express acquired information, rather than to a failure to learn.