Signal detection analysis of contingency assessment: Associative interference and nonreinforcement impact cue-outcome contingency sensitivity, whereas cue density affects bias.

In a signal detection theory approach to associative learning, the perceived (i.e., subjective) contingency between a cue and an outcome is a random variable drawn from a Gaussian distribution. At the end of the sequence, participants report a positive cue-outcome contingency provided the subjective contingency is above some threshold. Some researchers have suggested that the mean of the subjective contingency distributions and the threshold are controlled by different variables. The present data provide empirical support for this claim. In three experiments, participants were exposed to rapid streams of trials at the end of which they had to indicate whether a target outcome O1 was more likely following a target cue X. Interfering treatments were incorporated in some streams to impend participants' ability to identify the objective X-O1 contingency: interference trials (X was paired with an irrelevant outcome O2), nonreinforced trials (X was presented alone), plus control trials (an irrelevant cue W was paired with O2). Overall, both interference and nonreinforced trials impaired participants' sensitivity to the contingencies as measured by signal detection theory's d', but they also enhanced detection of positive contingencies through a cue density effect, with nonreinforced trials being more susceptible to this effect than interference trials. These results are explicable if one assumes interference and nonreinforced trials impact the mean of the associative strength distribution, while the cue density influences the threshold. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).