1 / 9

Disrupts Learning

CS. CS. CS. CS. CS. CS. US. US. US. US. US. Disrupts Learning. Problem for Contiguity Theory: Why? Both groups have same number of PAIRINGS. Probability. of a US. given that. a CS has occurred. Contiguity: the more pairings, the more learning.

callie
Télécharger la présentation

Disrupts Learning

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. CS CS CS CS CS CS US US US US US Disrupts Learning Problem for Contiguity Theory: Why? Both groups have same number of PAIRINGS

  2. Probability of a US given that a CS has occurred Contiguity: the more pairings, the more learning Contingency: How PREDICTIVE is the CS? TWO Probabilities are important: 1. How likely is it that the US will occur when the CS is presented? P(US/CS) e.g., 4 out of 10 CS presentations followed by a US P(US/CS) = 0.4

  3. Contiguity: the more pairing, the more learning Contingency: How PREDICTIVE is the CS? TWO Probabilities are important: 1. How likely is it that the US will occur when the CS is presented? P(US/CS) 2. How likely is it that the US will occur when CS is NOT presented ? P(US/noCS)

  4. Rescorla P(US/CS) = ? 0.4 (for all groups) CS CS CS CS CS US US US US For different groups: P(US/noCS) = 0 0.1 0.2 0.4

  5. P(US/CS) = 0.4 for all groups

  6. 1.0 0 0 1.0 Contingency Space P(US/CS) > P(US/noCS) Excitatory conditioning P(US/CS) = P(US/noCS) Random P(US/CS) P(US/CS) < P(US/noCS) Conditioned Inhibition P(US/noCS)

  7. Discrimination Training (Conditioned Inhibition) A-US B- A 1.0 A? P(US/CS) = 1 A? P(US/CS) = ? P(US/noCS) = ? P(US/noCS) = 0 P(US/CS) B? P(US/CS) = ? B? P(US/CS) = 0 0 B P(US/noCS) = ? P(US/noCS) > 0 0 P(US/noCS) 1.0

  8. It doesn’t need to be “perfect” discrimination training: 1.0 P(US/CS) > P(US/noCS) Excitatory conditioning P(US/CS) = P(US/noCS) Random P(US/CS) P(US/CS) < P(US/noCS) Conditioned Inhibition 0 0 1.0 P(US/noCS)

  9. Implications for Control groups: 1.0 Interaction Effect? CS-US unpaired P(US/CS) = P(US/noCS) Random Where would UNPAIRED lie in Contingency Space? P(US/CS) So….Unpaired is poor control group Conditioned Inhibition 0 P(US/noCS) 0 1.0 Better Control for interaction effect? Random: Neither Excitatory nor Inhibitory Conditioning (i.e., no learning?)

More Related