Chapter 7

The Associative Structure of Instrumental Conditioning

The way we talk about Pavlovian conditioning is very cognitive we say that animals form mental representations of the relationships among stimuli animal has a representation of the CS that gets associated with some representation of the US when we present a CS, it calls up a representation of the US Instrumental/operant conditioning is now viewed in the same way subjects/animals are information-processors, not only with respect to stimuli (Pavlovian) but also with respect to their own behavior (operant)

3 main components in operant learning situation

1. Stimulus S (or sometimes Sd) the discriminative stimulus sets the occasion for reward by signaling when the response will be followed by the reinforcer 2. Response R 3. Outcome O

Associations develop among each of these elements: S-R association the discriminative stimulus can become directly associated with the response S-O association the discriminative stimulus can become associated with the outcome (basically a Pavlovian association) R-O association the response becomes associated with the outcome

In recent years, this notion that animals develop mental representations of behavior is probably best shown in the work of Rescorla

Rescorla and colleagues have done a # of experiments demonstrating that animals develop R-O associations
The typical way to demonstrate R-O association is to train rats to make a response for a particular outcome and then devalue that outcome should lead to a decrease in responding

R-O association
Colwill & Rescorla (1985)
Training R1 LP R2 CP Devaluation Test

O1 Sucrose O2 food

O1
O2

LiCL
nothing

R1 and R2

(Same rats get both)

Everything is counterbalanced, but for the sake of simplicity say LP = sucrose and CP = food and the sucrose is devalued

R-O association
animals should have developed 2 different R-O associations

during test, 20 min with both responses available

they could LP or CP but no outcome was given, i.e., essentially an extinction test if R1 evokes memory for devalued or aversive outcome, but R2 does not, then should see a decrease in R1

R-O association
Results:

7 6 Mean resp/min 4 3 2 1 Time R1 -outcome was devalued 5 R2 -outcome not devalued

R-O association
Results:
when outcome (reinforcer) was devalued by pairings with LiCl, the response that produced the reinforcer declined the reason is that subjects remembered the reinforcer as being aversive and therefore devalued the response that was associated with that outcome so, memory for, or representation of, the goal object is crucial for the execution of the response

S-O association
Like Pavlovian CSs, Sd (discriminative stimuli) also become associated with outcomes

Colwill & Rescorla (1988)

Sd training S1 R1 LP R2 CP O1 Suc O2 food Response training Test

R3
R4

O1
O2

S1: R3 vs R4
S2: R3 vs R4

N
S2 L

2 new responses All rats get both

S-O association
if rat has S-O association (i.e., knew which outcome went with which Sd), then when given S1 on test, should perform the response that was associated with the same outcome i.e., when given S1 should perform R3 S2 should perform R4 This is essentially what happened

S-O association
Results:
10 8 Mean 6 resp/min 4 2 Trials Same outcome

Different outcome

S-O association
Results: in the presence of a particular Sd, the rats performed the response that was associated with the same outcome, more than the response associated with the different outcome evidence for S-O association

S-R association
somewhat simpler to demonstrate
T BP food

see more BP during the T than in its absence Rescorla has shown with devaluation experiments that even with complete devaluation, see some responding due to S-R association for ex., devalue food in the presence of the T, rat still barpresses (but wont eat the food)

Hierarchical Associations
In addition to the simple associations of 2 elements (i.e., S-R, S-O, R-O), can also have hierarchical associations the Sd becomes an occasion setter that signals when the response will be followed by a reinforcer

R R

O nothing

so, the Sd signals the relationship between a response and its outcome S [R O]

Hierarchical Associations
Recall from Pavlovian conditioning that a CS is only powerful when it reliably predicts a US

When the CS provides no reliable information about the occurrence of the US, then conditioning is weak
The same idea has been applied to the learning of a hierarchical association

Hierarchical Associations
S R R O nothing

In this situation, the S is informative about when the R will be followed by the O
S R R O O

However, in the second situation, the S is provides no information about when the R will be followed by the O

Hierarchical Associations
Rescorla (1990) used this idea to obtain evidence for a hierarchical association Training S1 S1 S2 S2 R1 R2 [R1 O1]

Test
S1: R1 vs R2 S2: R1 vs R2
4 30-s presentations of both discriminative stimuli, with both responses available

[R2
[R1 [R2 O1 O2

O2]
O2] O1]

But also,

Which Sd is informative about the R-O relation???

Hierarchical Associations
Results:

7 6 5 Mean resp/min 4 3 2 1 Trials S1 -not informative S2 - informative

Theories of Reinforcement
1. Reinforcement as stimulus presentation What identifies a reinforcer? Thorndike a stimulus that is satisfying the problem with this definition is that it is circular

Theories of Reinforcement
Hulls Drive Reduction Theory a biological need upsets the bodys homeostasis and induces a drive state any stimulus that satisfies the biological need, restores homeostasis, and thus reduces the drive state serves as a reinforcer the problem with this definition is that many reinforcers do not restore/maintain homeostasis incentive motivation (response elicited by reinforcer), curiosity, praise, criticism

Theories of Reinforcement
2. Reinforcement as behavior A. The Premack Principle

rather than talking about reinforcing stimuli, Premack focused on reinforcing responses so, instead of saying food is a reinforcing stimulus, Premack said eating is a reinforcing response the only difference between an operant response and a reinforcer is the probability of occurrence avoided circularity by defining a reinforcer as a more probable behavior than the operant behavior that is, high probability behaviors will reinforce low probability behaviors, but not the reverse

When a rat is water deprived (E1), it drinks more than it runs. Therefore, drinking reinforces running, but running does not reinforce drinking. When a rat is not water deprived (E2), it runs more than it drinks. Then running reinforces drinking, but drinking does not reinforce running

Theories of Reinforcement
B. Behavioral Regulation Approaches expanded on Premack Principle took into account the animals repertoire of behavior in a context this established the bliss point, the optimum distribution of responding for the subject operant contingencies shift the subject away from the bliss point; the subject behaves so as to approach the optimum distribution as closely as possible

Time Studying