Inhibition

Question 1

Relation learning

Answer 1

Learning the causal structure rather than simple associations.

Question 2

How to test relation learning?

Answer 2

Temporal contiguity. Weaker CR for longer delays between tone and food.

Question 3

Filled-trace conditioning

Answer 3

CS1 -> CS2 -> US. Animals learn to respond to CS more strongly with CS2 filling the trace period (time can be bridged).

Question 4

Higher-order learning

Answer 4

1. CS1->US.
2. CS2->CS1.

There is a transfer of values. Learning between neutral CS still allowed CS2 to gain value.

Question 5

No US present

Answer 5

1. CS1->CS2.
2. CS2->US.

Animals show CR to CS1 (learnt relation even in absent of reinforcement).

Question 6

Sequential contiguous presentation

Answer 6

Learning a specific temporal order.
CS1+CS2->US vs. CS2+CS1->nothing. However, just having 2 CS is not enough to test for discrimination between these 2 orders.

Question 7

Temporal order

Answer 7

Using 4 different CS to test for learning. Only specific pairings lead to reward so rats need to know the temporal order.

Question 8

Occasion setting

Answer 8

CS1 as a signal that CS2 has conditional meaning. (eg. tone->light->no food; light->food. Tone sets the occasion for when the light is not valuable).

Question 9

Feature positive discrimination

Answer 9

X-, AX+. CS1 is valuable only when a CS2 is present.

Question 10

Positive patterning

Answer 10

A-, B-, AB+. A and B alone mean nothing, but signal reward when together.

Question 11

Inhibitory conditioning

Answer 11

X+, AX-. A is a signal for no US.

Question 12

2 tests for inhibition

Answer 12

1. Retardation.
2. Summation.

Question 13

Retardation

Answer 13

If A is an inhibitor for a US, then after inhibitory training, it should take more training to turn A into a positive predictor for US. (Slows down learning).

Question 14

Problem with retardation

Answer 14

Maybe it doesn’t assess inhibition but simply the time it takes to overcome habituation or general attentional processes.

Question 15

Summation

Answer 15

Pair possible inhibitor (A) with another exciter (C) and see whether response to AC is less than to C alone. (Reduces responding in compound).

Question 16

5 types of relational learning

Answer 16

1. Filled trace conditioning (CS1->CS2->US).
2. Higher-order learning (CS1->US; CS2->CS1).
3. No US present (CS1->CS2; CS2->US).
4. Sequential contiguous presentation (AB+; BA-). Occasion setting (conditional relation).
5. Inhibitory conditioning (X+; AX-).

Question 17

Polack et al. (2020) massive extinction of conditioned inhibitor

Answer 17

1. Inhibition to transfer cues (summation; reduced ability to suppress CR to new cue Y). No change in inhibition to current cue X.
2. No extinction from retardation test.

Question 18

Simultaneous presentation

Answer 18

Animals seem to treat simultaneously-presented cues as a compound.

Question 19

Negative patterning

Answer 19

A+, B+, AB-.

Question 20

Conditional context discrimination

Answer 20

Context signals change in contingency. (Context X: A+, B-; Context Y: A-, B+).

Question 21

Biconditional

Answer 21

Elements signal change in contingency. (AB+, CD+, BC-, AD-).

Question 22

Iordanova et al. (2011) morning spotted tone room

Answer 22

Rats with HC lesions could still learn 2D associations but not 3D associations.

Question 23

3 possible accounts of morphine tolerance

Answer 23

1. Damage to cellular/molecular process/signalling.
2. Change in receptor efficiency (habituation-like).
3. Learnt response based on associations.

Question 24

Siegel (1982) rats and morphine response

Answer 24

Morphine tolerance is CR to conditioned drug stimuli. Cue preceding US elicits anticipatory response to counteract UR. Rats in a new context died from the tolerable dose.

Question 25

O'Brien et al. (1977) conditioned withdrawal

Answer 25

Paired stimulus with withdrawal drug. Compared to baseline, CS produced a similar temperature withdrawal (consistent with UR). Relapse may be due to cues causing cravings (rather than absence of the drug per se).