Packheiser Julian, Pusch Roland, Stein Clara C, Güntürkün Onur, Lachnit Harald, Uengoer Metin
Department of Biopsychology, Institut für Kognitive Neurowissenschaft, Faculty of Psychology, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Bochum, Germany.
Faculty of Psychology, Section for Experimental and Biological Psychology and Center for Mind, Brain, and Behavior, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Marburg, Germany.
Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2020 Jan;73(1):104-114. doi: 10.1177/1747021819866967. Epub 2019 Aug 14.
Cue competition refers to phenomena indicating that learning about the relationship between a cue and an outcome is influenced by learning about the predictive significance of other cues that are concurrently present. In two autoshaping experiments with pigeons, we investigated the strength of competition among cues for predictive value. In each experiment, animals received an overexpectation training (A+, D+ followed by AD+). In addition, the training schedule of each experiment comprised two control conditions-one condition to evaluate the presence of overexpectation (B+ followed by BY+) and a second one to assess the strength of competition among cues (C+ followed by CZ-). Training trials were followed by a test with individual stimuli (A, B, C). Experiment 1 revealed no evidence for cue competition as responding during the test mirrored the individual cue-outcome contingencies. The test results from Experiment 2, which included an outcome additivity training, showed cue competition in form of an overexpectation effect as responding was weaker for Stimulus A than Stimulus B. However, the test results from Experiment 2 also revealed that responding to Stimulus A was stronger than to Stimulus C, which indicates that competition among cues was not as strong as predicted by some influential theories of associative learning.
线索竞争是指这样一种现象，即关于一个线索与一个结果之间关系的学习会受到同时出现的其他线索的预测意义学习的影响。在两项对鸽子进行的自动成形实验中，我们研究了线索之间对预测价值的竞争强度。在每个实验中，动物接受过度期望训练（A+，D+，随后是AD+）。此外，每个实验的训练计划包括两个控制条件——一个条件用于评估过度期望的存在（B+，随后是BY+），另一个条件用于评估线索之间的竞争强度（C+，随后是CZ-）。训练试验之后是对单个刺激（A、B、C）的测试。实验1没有发现线索竞争的证据，因为测试期间的反应反映了单个线索与结果之间的偶然性。实验2的测试结果包括结果相加性训练，显示出以过度期望效应形式的线索竞争，因为对刺激A的反应比对刺激B的反应弱。然而，实验2的测试结果还表明，对刺激A的反应比对刺激C的反应更强，这表明线索之间的竞争不像一些有影响力的联想学习理论所预测的那么强烈。
