Term
|
Definition
| idea that CS & US must be close together in time for successful learning |
|
|
Term
| the amount of responding and the speed at which an animal learns |
|
Definition
| decreases as the temporal separation of CS and US increases |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| do not produce good conditioned taste aversion |
|
|
Term
| mass vs. space trial effect |
|
Definition
| if you compress trials, you get poor learning - spacing between produces much better learning |
|
|
Term
| CS and US's that are paired have |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| CS and US must be correlated |
|
Definition
| not just co-occuring (Rescorla) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| animal is taught a CR with a CS of two stimuli, one receives more attention/learning due to higher salience |
|
|
Term
| role of salience in overshadowing |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| George Clooney tennis example reflects |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| Roger Federer tennis example reflects |
|
Definition
| pre-trained cue & blocking |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Kamin; you can bias a CS to overcome being overshadowed if its already been pre-trained |
|
|
Term
| picture-word teaching is not effective because |
|
Definition
| children learn the association between written/spoken word...picture is already known and could BLOCK written/spoken learning |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| temporal correlation (not just contiguity) is necessary for conditioning |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| understanding casual relationships in the external world |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| probability of US occurring when CS present is greater than the probability of US occurring without the CS |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| probability of US occurring when CS present is equal to the probability of US occurring without the CS |
|
|
Term
| which is more important: contingency or continuity? |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| learning is a basic computational process in which animals estimate when or if important events occur |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| Shannon's information theory |
|
Definition
| the CS must reduce the anima's level of uncertainty about when the US will happen |
|
|
Term
| animals learn to respond to the CS if it is a useful predictor of the |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| combination of light and tone (CSs) paired with a US creates |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Wagner; a CS must have some validity, relative to other cues present as a signal for the US |
|
|
Term
| comparative rate estimates |
|
Definition
| responding = rate of US when CS is present relative to the base rate of conditioning is equal if rate of US occurring in presence of CS varies along the same ratio is the same |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Wagner; CS must convey information; redundant CS will fail to convey information; must have validity relative to other cues |
|
|
Term
| variations in conditioning reflect |
|
Definition
| variations in attention to CS |
|
|
Term
| in overshadowing, condition to one CS was effected by |
|
Definition
| intensity of accompanying CS; salience |
|
|
Term
| attention to CS is determined by |
|
Definition
| intensity and importance as a signal (relavent info) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| will increase as the animal learns the association between CS and US |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| will decrease if there is a better predictor of the US |
|
|
Term
| variation in attention to the CS |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| variations in processing the US |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| surprising; animals won't learn anything on a trial where everything is expected |
|
|
Term
| nothing is learned in blocking because |
|
Definition
| US is fully anticipated (as signaled by pre-trained CS); no need to revise update/learn |
|
|
Term
| notion of surprise became formalized via the |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| the Rescorla-Wagner model describes |
|
Definition
| when animals learn associations between a CS and US and how fast the learning occurs |
|
|
Term
| learning is determined by the |
|
Definition
| discrepancy between the experience of the US & how much it was expected |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| parameters that regulate the rate of conditioning...without them, animals would learn in one trial |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| how much the subject knows about the relationship between US and CS AKA associative strength |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
|
|
Term
|
Definition
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| amount of learning/change in associative strength |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| reinforcing properties of US |
|
|
Term
| amount of learning is proportional to |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| CS with higher salience conditions faster but this does not effect |
|
Definition
| how much one learns (can only learn up to "1") |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
pre-trained CS starts with high V
change in V is already large when new CS is added
change in V is small on each training trial with added CS |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
two CS "share" V
more salient CS "wins"; effectively block conditioning to weaker CS |
|
|
Term
| the context can function as a |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| "unsignalled" US presentation caused considerable |
|
Definition
| conditioning to context; Odling-Smee |
|
|
Term
| Durlach's experiment with two CSs and good conditioning also revealed that |
|
Definition
| having the second CS can actually overshadowing context as a CS |
|
|
