The outcome specificity of learned predictiveness effects: parallels between human causal learning and animal conditioning.

Two experiments examined the outcome specificity of a learned predictiveness effect in human causal learning. Experiment 1 indicated that prior experience of a cue-outcome relation modulates learning about that cue with respect to a different outcome from the same affective class but not with respect to an outcome from a different affective class. Experiment 2 ruled out an interpretation of this effect in terms of context specificity. These results indicate that learned predictiveness effects in human causal learning index an associability that is specific to a particular class of outcomes. Moreover, they mirror demonstrations of the reinforcer specificity of analogous effects in animal conditioning, supporting the suggestion that, under some circumstances, human causal learning and animal conditioning reflect the operation of common associative mechanisms.

Blocking and unblocking in human causal learning.

Three experiments sought to develop the suggestion that, under some circumstances, common associative learning mechanisms might underlie animal conditioning and human causal learning, by demonstrating, in humans, an effect analogous to the unblocking by reinforcer omission observed in animal conditioning. Experiment 1 found no such effect. Experiment 2, designed to prevent inhibitory influences that might have masked excitatory unblocking in Experiment 1, demonstrated unblocking, indicating common human-animal associative learning mechanisms in which the associability of a stimulus varies as a function of its predictive history. Experiment 3, using a similar design but with a procedure promoting application of rational inference processes, failed to detect the same unblocking effect, indicating that associative and cognitive mechanisms may influence human causal learning.

Is the context specificity of latent inhibition a sufficient explanation of learned irrelevance?

In three experiments, rats were pre-exposed either to uncorrelated presentations of a light and sucrose pellets (group CS/US) or to equivalent presentations of the light and pellets in separate sessions (control). In Experiment 1, subsequent conditioning to the light proceeded more slowly in group CS/US than in the control group, whether this conditioning was excitatory, with the light signalling the delivery of pellets, or inhibitory, with the light signalling their absence. Bonardi and Hall (1996) have argued that this learned irrelevance effect may be reducible to latent inhibition, which would be stronger in group CS/US because they are both pre-exposed and conditioned to the CS in the presence of traces of previous USs occurring in the same session. This analysis implies that group CS/US should have conditioned more rapidly to the CS than controls on the first trial of each session in Experiment 1, but this did not happen. It also implies that the learned irrelevance effect should be reversed if conditioning trials are given at a rate of one per day. Experiments 2 and 3 found no support for this prediction. We conclude that learned irrelevance effects cannot always be reduced to latent inhibition.