Superior ambiguous occasion setting with visual than temporal feature stimuli.

Three experiments with rats compared the relative ease with which different sets of visual or temporal cues could participate in Pavlovian learning. In Experiment 1, 1 group was trained to discriminate between visual cues (Light vs. Dark), whereas the other group learned to discriminate between temporal cues (early [10 s] vs. late [90 s]). Both groups learned to distinguish food-paired from nonpaired periods equally well. In Experiment 2, 2 groups were trained on an ambiguous occasion setting task. For Group Visual, a 2-min Light period signaled that 1 10-s auditory conditioned stimulus, CS1, was reinforced with 1 unconditioned stimulus, US1, but that CS2 was not reinforced; whereas a 2-min dark period signaled that CS1 was not reinforced, but CS2 was reinforced with US2 (i.e., Light: CS1-US1, CS2-; Dark: CS1-, CS2-US2). For Group Temporal, early (10-s) or late (90-s) temporal cues within each of these Light and Dark periods were diagnostic of these contingencies (i.e., Early: CS1-US1, CS2-; Late: CS1-, CS2-US2). Group Visual learned the task, but Group Temporal did not. In Experiment 3 we demonstrated that animals could not solve a related temporal ambiguous occasion setting task in which 1 visual stimulus signaled that both CSs were reinforced early whereas the other visual stimulus signaled that the CSs were reinforced only late. Contrary to a currently popular information theory approach to timing in Pavlovian learning, these results suggest that overt nontemporal visual stimuli are better incorporated into conditional discrimination learning than are temporal stimuli. (PsycINFO Database Record