Relational rule discovery in complex discrimination learning

Failure to learn and generalise abstract relational rules has critical implications for education. In this study, we aimed to determine which training conditions facilitate relational transfer in a relatively simple (patterning) discrimination versus a relatively complex (biconditional) discrimination. The amount of training participants received had little influence on rates of relational transfer. Instead, trial-sequencing of the training contingencies influenced relational transfer in different ways depending on the complexity of the discrimination. Clustering instances of relational rules together during training improved transfer of both simpler patterning and more difficult biconditional rules, regardless of individual differences in cognitive reflection. However, blocking all trials of the same type together improved rule transfer only for biconditional discriminations. Individual differences in cognitive reflection were also more predictive of relational rule use under suboptimal training conditions. The results highlight the need for comprehensive accounts of relational learning to consider how learning conditions and individual differences affect the likelihood of engaging in learning relational structures.

Flexible Configural Learning of Non-Linear Discriminations and Detection of Stimulus Compounds

Previous work showed that prior experience with discriminations requiring configural solutions (e.g., biconditional discrimination) confers an advantage for the learning of new configural discriminations (e.g., negative patterning) in comparison to prior experience with elemental discriminations. This effect is well established but its mechanism is not well understood. In the studies described below we assessed whether the saliences of configural and element cues were affected by prior training. We observed positive transfer to a new configural discrimination after configural pre-Training but we were unable to find evidence for changes in cue salience using a signal-detection task. Our results confirm previous work by demonstrating experience-dependent flexibility in cue processing but they also suggest that this flexibility occurs at a point in the stimulus processing pipeline later than 1-2 s after the presentation of stimulus inputs. (138 words).

Cue competition influences biconditional discrimination

When multiple cues are presented in compound and trained to predict an outcome, the cues may compete for association with an outcome. However, if both cues are necessary for solution of the discrimination, then competition might be expected to interfere with the solution of the discrimination. We consider how unequal stimulus salience influences learning in configural discriminations, where no individual stimulus predicts the outcome. We compared two hypotheses: (1) salience modulation minimises the initial imbalance in salience and (2) unequal stimulus salience will impair acquisition of configural discriminations. We assessed the effect of varying stimulus salience in a biconditional discrimination (AX+, AY−, BX−, BY+). Across two experiments, we found stronger discrimination when stimuli had matched, rather than mismatched, salience, supporting our second hypothesis. We discuss the implications of this finding for Mackintosh’s model of selective attention, modified elemental models and configural models of learning.

Flexible Configural Learning of Non-Linear Discriminations and Detection of Stimulus Compounds

Previous work showed that prior experience with discriminations requiring configural solutions (e.g., biconditional discrimination) confers an advantage for the learning of new configural discriminations (e.g., negative patterning) in comparison to prior experience with elemental discriminations. This effect is well established but its mechanism is not well understood. In the studies described below we assessed whether the saliences of configural and element cues were affected by prior training. We observed positive transfer to a new configural discrimination after configural pre-training but we were unable to find evidence for changes in cue salience using a signal-detection task. Our results confirm previous work by demonstrating experience-dependent flexibility in cue processing but they also suggest that this flexibility occurs at a point in the stimulus processing pipeline later than 1–2 s after the presentation of stimulus inputs. (138 words)