Stimulus representation in SOP: I - Theoretical rationalization and some implications
Stimulus representation in SOP: I - Theoretical rationalization and some implications
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/s0376-6357(03)00016-0
复制
发表时间：
2003-04-28
影响因子：
1.3
通讯作者：
Wagner, AR
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Brandon, SE;Vogel, EH;Wagner, AR
SOP模型[动物的信息处理：记忆机制，Erlbaum，希尔斯代尔，NJ，1981，第5页]根据其假设的刺激表示、网络特征以及学习和表现的规则进行描述。它示出了几个巴甫洛夫条件反射现象可以占模型的假定刺激表示的基础上。对SOP模型的挑战促使在AESOP [当代学习理论：巴甫洛夫条件反射和传统学习理论的地位，Erlbaum，希尔斯代尔，新泽西州，1989年，第149页]中采用成分刺激表示，这是无条件刺激的双重表示（美国），和C-SOP [当代学习：Theory and Application，Erlbaum，Mahwah，NJ，200 1，第23页]，这是条件刺激（CS）的多分量表示。假设的组件CS表示，其中大量的元素可以单独学习，有必要修改的学习规则。修改后的“约束”规则被发现有助于解释巴甫洛夫条件反射的时间特性，以及Rescorla [J. Exp.精神病。阿尼姆。行为举止。过程26（2000）428; Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 54 B（2001）53：J. Exp.精神病。阿尼姆。行为举止。过程28（2002）163]，表明在化合物中训练的刺激不共享相同的定量命运。(C)2003 Elsevier Science B. V.保留所有权利。
The SOP model [Information Processing in Animals: Memory Mechanisms, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 1981, p. 5] is described in terms of its assumed stimulus representation, network characteristics, and rules for learning and performance. It is shown how several Pavlovian conditioning phenomena can be accounted on the basis of the model's presumed stimulus representation. Challenges to the SOP model prompted the adoption of a componential stimulus representation in: AESOP [Contemporary Learning Theories: Pavlovian Conditioning and the Status of Traditional Learning Theory, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 1989, p. 149], this was a dual representation of the unconditioned stimulus (US), and C-SOP [Contemporary Learning: Theory and Application, Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, 200 1, p. 23], this was a multi-component representation of the conditioned stimulus (CS). The assumption of a componential CS representation, where large numbers of elements can be separately learned about, necessitated a modification of the learning rule. The modified, "constrained" rule was found useful to explain timing characteristics of Pavlovian conditioned responses, as well as data offered by Rescorla [J. Exp. Psychol. Anim. Behav. Process. 26 (2000) 428; Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 54B (2001) 53: J. Exp. Psychol. Anim. Behav. Process. 28 (2002) 163] showing that stimuli trained in compound do not share the same quantitative fate. (C) 2003 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.