Percepción de la contingencia en ratasmodulación fechneriana y metodología de la detección de señales

  1. Carnero Sierra, Susana 1
  2. Morís Fernández, Joaquín
  3. Acebes Andreu, Félix 1
  4. Loy, Ignacio 1
  1. 1 Universidad de Oviedo
    info

    Universidad de Oviedo

    Oviedo, España

    ROR https://ror.org/006gksa02

Revista:
REMA

ISSN: 1135-6855

Ano de publicación: 2009

Volume: 14

Número: 2

Páxinas: 14-37

Tipo: Artigo

DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openDialnet editor

Outras publicacións en: REMA

Resumo

De acuerdo con las principales teorías del condicionamiento, el aprendizaje inhibitorio ocurre cuando la probabilidad del estímulo incondicionado (EI) en presencia del estímulo condicionado (EC) o p1 es menor que la probabilidad del EI en ausencia del EC o p2. Este artículo evalúa si la diferencia entre p1 y p2 que se requiere para producir condicionamiento inhibitorio es la misma independientemente del valor específico de p1. Empleando un procedimiento apetitivo de condicionamiento Pavloviano con ratas se comparan experimentalmente dos valores extremos de p1 (baja y alta) sugiriendo que la diferencia entre p1 y p2 necesaria para producir condicionamiento inhibitorio varía con los diferentes valores de p1 de manera logarítmica, al igual que muchas modalidades sensoriales. Además se ofrece un tratamiento de los datos basado en los de la Teoría de la Detección de Señales empleando curvas COR y se discute su utilidad.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • 1. Allan, L. G. (1980). A note on measurement of contingency between two binary variables in judgment tasks. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 15, 147-149.
  • 2. Allan, L. G. (1993). Human contingency judgements: Rule based or associative? Psychological Bulletin, 114, 435-448.
  • 3. Allan, L. G., Hannah, S. D., Crump, M. J. C. y Siegel, S. (2008). Psychophysics of Contingency Assessment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 137, 226-24.
  • 4. Allan, L. G., Siegel, S. D. y Tangen, J. M. (2005). A signal detection analysis of contingency data. Learning and Behavior, 33, 250-263.
  • 5. Baker, A. G. (1976). Learned irrelevance and learned helplessness: Rats learn that stimuli, reinforcers, and responses are uncorrelated. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 2, 130–141.
  • 6. Baker, A. G. y Mackintosh, N. J. (1977). Excitatory and inhibitory conditioning following uncorrelated presentations of CS and UCS. Animal Learning and Behavior, 5, 315–319.
  • 7. Baker, A. G. y Mackintosh, N. J. (1979). Preexposure to the CS alone, or Cs and US uncorrelated: Latent inhibition, blocking by context or learned irrelevance? Learning and Motivation, 10, 278–294.
  • 8. Baker, A. G., Murphy, R. A., Vallee-Tourangeau, F. y Mehta, R. (2001). Contingency learning and causal reasoning. In R. R. Mowrer y S. B. Klein (Eds.), Handbook of contemporary learning theories (pp. 255– 306). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Blanco, M.J. (2000). Psicofísica. Madrid: Universitas.
  • 9. Blough, D.S. (1967). Stimulus generalization as signal detection in pigeons. Science, 176, 940-941.
  • 10. Blough, D.S. (2001). Some contributions of signal detection theory to the analysis of the stimulus control in animals. Behavioural Processes, 54, 127-126.
  • 11. Boneau, C.A. y Cole, J.L. (1967). Decision theory, the pigeon, and the psychophysical function. Psychological Review, 74, 123-135.
  • 12. De Houwer, J. y Beckers, T. (2002). A review of recent developments in research and theories on human contingency learning. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55B, 289–310.
  • 13. Dickinson, A., Shanks, D. y Evenden, J. (1984). Judgement of act–outcome contingency: The role of selective attribution. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 36A, 29– 50.
  • 14. Green, D.M. y Swets, J.A. (1966). Signal detection theory and psychophysics. New York: Wiley.
  • 15. Grice, G.R. (1972). Conditioning and decision theory of response evocation. En Bower G. H. y Spence K. W. (Eds.), The Psychology of Learning and Motivation (pp. 2-63). New York: Academic Press.
  • 16. Hack, M.H. (1963). Signal Detection in the Rat. Science, 139, 758-759.
  • 17. Hallam, S. C., Grahame, N.J. y Miller R.R. (1992). Exploring the edges of Pavlovian contingency space: An assessment of Contingency theory and its various metrics. Learning and Motivation, 23, 225-249.
  • 18. Hazlett, B.A. (2003). Predator recognition and learned irrelevance in the crayfish Orconectes virilis. Ethology, 109, 765-780.
  • 19, Hirsch, K. A. (1979). Signal detection analysis of conditioning data. The Journal of General Psychology. 101, 249-258.
  • 20. Hull, C. L. (1950). Simple qualitative discrimination learning. Psychological Review, 57, 303-313.
  • 21. Mackintosh, N.J. (1975). A theory of attention: Variations in the associability of stimuli with reinforcement. Psychological Review, 82, 276-298.
  • 22. Marston, H. M. (1996). Analysis of cognitive function in animals, the value of SDT. Cognitive Brain Research, 3, 269-277.
  • 23. Mason, C.R., Idobro, F., Early, S.J., Abibi, A., Zheng, L., Harrison, J.M. y Carney, L.H. (2003). CS-dependent response probability in an auditory masked-detection task: Considerations based on models of Pavlovian conditioning. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 56B, 193-205.
  • 24. Matute, H. (2002). Introducción: Aprendizaje de relaciones causales. Cognitiva, 14, 7-14. Miller, R.R. y Matute, E. (1996). Animal analogues of causal judgment. En D.R. Shanks, K.J. Holyoak D.L. Medin (eds.) The psychology of Learning and Motivation, vol 34, Causal Learning, 133-166. San Diego C.A. Academic Press.
  • 25. Morís, J, Santoveña, A. Fernández, A. y Loy, I. (2005).Contingency perception and learned irrelevance: a proposal based on Fechner’s law. 9th European Congress of Psychology. Granada.
  • 26. Morís, J. Santoveña, A. y Loy, I. (2004). Just-noticeable difference for the contingency estimation, Congreso Conjunto SEPC-ISCP. Oviedo.
  • 27. Morís, J., Carnero, S. y Loy, I. (2008).Contingencies perceived as equal produce the same learned irrelevance, Associative Learning Symposium XII, Gregynog, R.U.
  • 28. Morís, J., Carnero, S. y Loy, I. (en prensa). Perception of contingency follows Fechner´s Law in appetitive Pavlovian conditioning. Enviado al Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, nº de identificación 2009-0040.
  • 29. Morís, J., Santoveña, A. y Loy, I. (2005). Aplicación de la ley de Weber-Fechner al aprendizaje de la contingencia. XVII Congreso de la SEPC. Madrid.
  • 30. Morís, J., Santoveña, A., Carnero, S. y Loy I. (2006). Predicción de la percepción de la contingencia desde los modelos asociativos y de reglas de contingencia. XVIII Congreso de la SEPC, Málaga.
  • 31. Murphy, R.A. y Baker, A.G. (2004). A role for CS–US Contingency in Pavlovian conditioning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 30, 229–239.
  • 32. Nevin, J.A. (1964). A Method for the Determination of Psychophysical Function in the Rat. Journal of Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 7, 169.
  • 33. Nevin, J.A. (1965). Decision theory in studies of discrimination in animals. Science, 150, 1057.
  • 34. Nevin, J.A. (1981). Psychophysics and reinforcement schedules: An Integration. En M.L.Commons y J.A. Nevin (eds). Quantitative studies of operant behaviour, vol. 1: Discriminative properties of reinforcement schedules. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
  • 35. Papini, M.R. y Bitterman, M.E. (1990). The role of contingency in classical conditioning. Psychological Review, 97, 396-403.
  • 36. Pearce, J. M. (1987). A model for stimulus generalization in pavlovian conditioning. Psychological Review, 94, 61-73.
  • 37. Pearce, J. M. y G. Hall. (1980). A model for Pavlovian learning: Variations in the effectiveness of conditioned but not of unconditioned stimuli. Psychological Review, 87, 532-552.
  • 38. Rescorla, R.A. (1966). Predictability and number of pairings in Pavlovian fear conditioning. Psychological Science, 4, 383-384.
  • 39. Rescorla, R.A. (1967). Pavlovian conditioning and its proper control procedures. Psychological Review, 74, 71-80. Rescorla, R.A. (1968). Probability of shock in the presence and absence of CS in fear conditioning. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 66, 1–5.
  • 40. Rescorla, R.A. (1969a). Conditioning inhibition of fear resulting from negative CS-US contingencies. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 67, 507-509.
  • 41. Rescorla, R.A. (1969b). Pavlovian Conditioned Inhibition. Psychological Bulletin, 72, 77-94.
  • 42. Rescorla, R.A. (1971). Variation in the effectiveness of reinforcement and nonreinforcement following prior inhibitory conditioning. Learning and Motivation, 2, 113-123.
  • 43. Rescorla, R.A. y LoLordo, V.M. (1965). Inhibition of avoidance behavior. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 59, 406-412.
  • 44. Rescorla, R.A. y Wagner, A.R. (1972). A theory of Pavlovian conditioning: Variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and nonreinforcement. In A.H. Black y W.F. Prokasy (Eds.), Classical conditioning II: Current research and theory (pp. 64–99). New York: Appleton.
  • 45. Rosas, J.M. (2002) (Edt.). Teorías asociativas del aprendizaje. Jaén: del lunar.
  • 46. Schmajuk, N. A. (1987). Classical conditioning, signal detection and evolution. Behavioural Processes, 14, 277-289.
  • 47. Spence, K. W. (1936). The nature of discrimination learning in animals. Psychological Review, 43, 427–449.
  • 48. Vallee-Tourangeau, F., Murphy, R.A. y Baker, A.G. (2005). Contiguity and the outcome density bias in action-outcome contingency judgements. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58B, 177-192.
  • 49. Wagner, A.R. (1981). SOP: A model of automatic memory processing in animal behavior. En N.E. Spear, y R.R. Miller (Eds.), Information Processing in Animals: Memory Mechanisms, pp.5-47. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • 50. Wasserman, E.A., Elek, S.M., Chatlosh, D.L. y Baker, A.G. (1993). Rating causal relations: Role of probability in judgments of response-outcome contingency. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19, 174-188.
  • 51. Williams, D.A., Overmaier, J.B. y LoLordo, V.M. (1992) A reevaluation of Rescorla’s early dictums about Pavlovian conditioned inhibition. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 275-290.
  • 52. Zar, J. (1984) Biostatistical Analysis. Boston: Prentice-Hall.
Fonte de datos: Dialnet