Farley J, Alkon D L
Annu Rev Psychol. 1985;36:419-94. doi: 10.1146/annurev.ps.36.020185.002223.
In Table 1, we summarize what is convincingly demonstrated to date for the major vertebrate and invertebrate model systems attempting to elucidate cellular mechanisms of associative learning. Two major concerns are the adequacy of the behavioral demonstrations and the completeness and extent of the accompanying neurophysiology. In addressing the issue of behavior, it is important to define clearly which criteria are both necessary and sufficient to infer the involvement of an associative-learning process. Similarly, it is also important to distinguish among those primary characteristics of associative learning in general, and those secondary or tertiary features that serve to define various subclasses. In our view, it would be unreasonable to require that any given preparation exhibit all the defining features of classical conditioning, for example, in order to qualify as a "legitimate" instance of associative learning. This is especially true if the goal is to understand the more general, rather than the specific, mechanisms involved in associative learning. Hence, we emphasize the following as primary features of learned behavior: pairing specificity, stimulus specificity, long-term retention (arbitrarily defined as lasting for at least 24 hr), a moderate degree of reversibility by subsequent experience (e.g. extinction), and demonstrations that nonassociative-learning processes cannot account for features a-c. Where appropriate, we also identified other interesting features of the learned behavior. It is apparent from the table that a major unresolved issue for most of the preparations is the extent to which the behavioral changes are exclusively associative. This is no less true for the vertebrate preparations than it is for the invertebrates. The clearest example of an exclusively associative behavioral change is the rabbit NMR. The learning-produced changes in the invertebrate preparations were all shown, to varying degrees, to be pairing specific. Yet a major unresolved issue is the degree to which apparent examples of associative-learning reflect complex interactions among basically nonassociative-learning processes. The core issue is really quite simple: Does the associative training procedure result in the acquisition of new or qualitatively different behavior; and is there a strict requirement for an associative relation? In addressing the adequacy of the neurophysiological analyses, the major issue is that of localization. Logically, there are two components to this.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)
在表1中,我们总结了迄今为止在试图阐明联想学习细胞机制的主要脊椎动物和无脊椎动物模型系统中令人信服地证明的内容。两个主要问题是行为证明的充分性以及伴随的神经生理学的完整性和范围。在解决行为问题时,明确界定哪些标准对于推断联想学习过程的参与既必要又充分非常重要。同样,区分联想学习的那些一般主要特征以及用于定义各种子类别的次要或第三特征也很重要。我们认为,要求任何给定的实验准备表现出经典条件反射的所有定义特征是不合理的,例如,以便有资格作为联想学习的“合法”实例。如果目标是理解联想学习中更普遍而非特定的机制,情况尤其如此。因此,我们强调以下作为学习行为的主要特征:配对特异性、刺激特异性、长期保持(任意定义为持续至少24小时)、随后经验的适度可逆性(例如消退),以及非联想学习过程无法解释特征a - c的证明。在适当的情况下,我们还确定了学习行为的其他有趣特征。从表中可以明显看出,大多数实验准备的一个主要未解决问题是行为变化在多大程度上完全是联想性的。脊椎动物的实验准备和无脊椎动物的情况一样都是如此。完全联想性行为变化的最明显例子是兔子的瞬膜反应。在无脊椎动物的实验准备中,学习产生的变化都在不同程度上表现出配对特异性。然而,一个主要未解决问题是联想学习的明显例子在多大程度上反映了基本非联想学习过程之间的复杂相互作用。核心问题实际上非常简单:联想训练程序是否导致获得新的或质的不同的行为;以及对联想关系是否有严格要求?在解决神经生理学分析的充分性问题时,主要问题是定位问题。从逻辑上讲,这有两个组成部分。(摘要截断于400字)