Biological significance as a determinant of cue competition
Biological significance as a determinant of cue competition
复制标题
DOI：
10.1111/j.1467-9280.1996.tb00383.x
复制
发表时间：
1996-11-01
影响因子：
8.2
通讯作者：
Matute, H
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Denniston, JC;Miller, RR;Matute, H
许多研究人员注意到人类的因果判断和动物的巴甫洛夫条件反射之间的相似之处。这两种学习形式之间的一个最近注意到的差异是，动物中没有向后阻滞，而人类的因果关系判断则出现了向后阻滞。在这里，我们报告了两个实验，研究生物学意义的作用，在向后阻滞作为一个潜在的解释，这种差异。以大鼠为受试者，我们使用了感觉预处理和二阶条件反射程序，这使得一些动物在训练过程中被阻断的线索保持低生物学意义，但对其他动物则不然。只有当目标获取线索在训练过程中具有低生物学意义时，才观察到向后阻滞。这些结果表明，人类因果判断和动物巴甫洛夫条件反射之间的明显差异并不是因为物种差异，而是因为人类因果关系研究通常使用低生物学意义的刺激，而动物巴甫洛夫研究通常使用高生物学意义的刺激，这显然是保护线索竞争。
Many researchers have noted the similarities between causal judgment in humans and Pavlovian conditioning in animals. One recently noted discrepancy between these two forms of learning is the absence of backward blocking in animals, in contrast with its occurrence in human causality judgment. Here we report two experiments that investigated the role of biological significance in backward blocking as a potential explanation of this discrepancy. With rats as subjects, we used sensory preconditioning and second-order conditioning procedures, which allowed the to-be-blocked cue to retain low biological significance during training for some animals, but not for others. Backward blocking was observed only when the tar get cue was of low biological significance during training. These results suggest that the apparent discrepancy between human causal judgment and animal Pavlovian conditioning arises not because of a species difference, but because human causality studies ordinarily use stimuli of low biological significance, whereas animal Pavlovian studies ordinarily use stimuli of high biological significance, which are apparently protected against cue competition.