Select your language

Suggested languages for you:
Log In Start studying!

Lernmaterialien für Lernen & Gedächtnis an der Bergische Universität Wuppertal

Greife auf kostenlose Karteikarten, Zusammenfassungen, Übungsaufgaben und Altklausuren für deinen Lernen & Gedächtnis Kurs an der Bergische Universität Wuppertal zu.

TESTE DEIN WISSEN

What are the three core assumptions of the SAM model presented in this chapter?


Lösung anzeigen
TESTE DEIN WISSEN
  • coding -> an association will be formed between the context and the word 
  • recall (retrieval) -> retrieval is initiated by the presentation of one or more retrieval cues, and the amount retrieved depends on the similarity of this retrieval cue to the stimuli present during encoding
  • recogntion -> leading to stronger activation of this record than in a recall test 
  • cue overload -> the more items a cue is associated with, the less effective this cue will be in activating any of them
Lösung ausblenden
TESTE DEIN WISSEN

How does SAM account for the effects of organisation and interference?


Lösung anzeigen
TESTE DEIN WISSEN
  • Organisation

Cue overload -> one reason why organisation facilitates memory is that organisation makes it possible for us to use more retrieval cues 

-> as more cues become available, each still leads us to only a few memories, but the total number of accessed memories increased substantially


  • Interference

cue overload -> the more events occur in the same context, the harder we will find it to remember any of         these events



Lösung ausblenden
TESTE DEIN WISSEN

The Rescorla-Wagner model shows how a few simple assumptions can be used to account for seemingly complex behavior. How does the model’s explanation of contingency illustrates this?


Lösung anzeigen
TESTE DEIN WISSEN

 contingent A -> US………………….A -> US…………………

-> the US isn’t presented by itself (no stimulus occurs in a vacuum, there are always other stimuli)

-> better deception of contingent: AB -> US……….B -> US………..AB -> US………B -> US

    (B = background cues)

    -> B will elicit more than stimulus A 

 -> as the strength of the background cues increase, they begin to absorb a greater and greater share of the available strength (Vmax) until all is conditioned to B, none to A

   -> the model predicts that although fear will be conditioned to stimulus A initially, after extended training the nominal CS, stimulus A, will elicit no fear

   

Lösung ausblenden
TESTE DEIN WISSEN

How is Kamin’s concept of surprise incorporated within the Rescorla-Wagner model?

Lösung anzeigen
TESTE DEIN WISSEN

Kamin showed with the blocking experiment that learning depends on some extent on the discrepancy between what happens to us and what we expected to happen

  • where Kamin has assumed that surprise determined whether conditioning occurs, Rescorla and Wagner extended this assumption -> the surprise would also determine how much conditioning occurs -> the more unexpected the US, the stronger the conditioning 

Lösung ausblenden
TESTE DEIN WISSEN

How does the model account for blocking?


Lösung anzeigen
TESTE DEIN WISSEN
  • blocking: if two conditioned stimuli (a and b) were presented together, the subject would take both stimuli into account in estimating the likelihood of the US 

    -> the association at the beginning of a trial: Vab = Va + Vb

    -> the amount of conditioning on a compound trial :

    ΔVa = ΔVb = c (Vmax - Vab)

    - experiment: noise was paired with shock, then a noise-light compound was paired with shock

    V(noise) = 1.0

    Vnl = V(noise) + V(light) = 1.0 + 0 = 1.0

    the amount of conditioning to the light would be -> ΔV(light) = c (Vmax - Vnl) = 0.3 (1.0-1.0) = 0

    -> no conditioning would occur

Lösung ausblenden
TESTE DEIN WISSEN

There are two crucial tests of any theoretical model: Can it account for known phenomena and can it accurately predict new ones? What is an example of the Rescorla-Wagner model’s new predictions?


Lösung anzeigen
TESTE DEIN WISSEN

over expectation effect: result of cues predicting US more strongly than it is justified

Lösung ausblenden
TESTE DEIN WISSEN

Is contiguity necessary of sufficient for conditioning? What is the relevant evidence?

Lösung anzeigen
TESTE DEIN WISSEN

-> it is necessary but not sufficient 


evidence:

- Rescorla -> contingeny 


Lösung ausblenden
TESTE DEIN WISSEN

How did Garcia and Knelling show that the conditioning of a stronger aversion to a taste than to a light wasn’t simply the result of greater salience of the taste as a conditioned stimulus?


Lösung anzeigen
TESTE DEIN WISSEN

-> they repeated their experiment with the same compound CS (taste-noise-light), but with electro shocks as the US instead of X rays -> the audiovisual stimulus produces suppression of drinking and the taste stimulus had no effect 

Lösung ausblenden
TESTE DEIN WISSEN

What assumptions did Hull and Tolman share in common? Where did they disagree?

Lösung anzeigen
TESTE DEIN WISSEN

- acceptance of unobservable behavior/ mental states

-> similar position

- disagree about the nature of the internal states

Hull: simple associations

Tolman: more complex forms (expectations)

Lösung ausblenden
TESTE DEIN WISSEN

What is the equation used by Rescorla and Wagner to predict learning? What does each symbol represent?


Lösung anzeigen
TESTE DEIN WISSEN

ΔVn = c (Vmax - Vn)


Vn = the strength of the association at the beginning of trial n

ΔVn = the change in the strength of the association produces by trial n

Vmax: asymptotic value of V

 c -> determines the speed of conditioning

Lösung ausblenden
TESTE DEIN WISSEN

How can the same equation be used to predict both conditioning and extinction?

Lösung anzeigen
TESTE DEIN WISSEN
  • in conditioning:  ΔVn is positive because Vmax is 1

    - Vmax = 1.0, c = 0.3, the associative strength at the beginning of trial 1 is assumed to be zero

    ΔV1 = c (Vmax - V1) = 0.30 (1.0-0) = 0.30

    ΔV2 = c (Vmax - V2) = 0.30 (1.0-0.30) = 0.21


  • Extinction: ΔVn is negative because Vmax is 0

   example: on the first extinction trial, V would have an initial value of 0.66

    - result of nonreinforcement: ΔV1 = c (Vmax - V1) = 0.30 (0-0.66) = -0.198

    -> V2 = 0.66-0.2 = 0.46


Lösung ausblenden
TESTE DEIN WISSEN

How could the Pavlovian concepts of generalisation and counterconditioning be used to account for the success of systematic desensitisation?


Lösung anzeigen
TESTE DEIN WISSEN

counterconditioning

-> when you pair the CS (phobic symbols) with the US that elicits a different response (relaxation): less likely that old response will occur the more strong the new connection is 

-> suppress the fear


generalisation

- is not only for one feared stimuli but for all of the feared stimuli (?)

Lösung ausblenden
  • 206573 Karteikarten
  • 2223 Studierende
  • 114 Lernmaterialien

Beispielhafte Karteikarten für deinen Lernen & Gedächtnis Kurs an der Bergische Universität Wuppertal - von Kommilitonen auf StudySmarter erstellt!

Q:

What are the three core assumptions of the SAM model presented in this chapter?


A:
  • coding -> an association will be formed between the context and the word 
  • recall (retrieval) -> retrieval is initiated by the presentation of one or more retrieval cues, and the amount retrieved depends on the similarity of this retrieval cue to the stimuli present during encoding
  • recogntion -> leading to stronger activation of this record than in a recall test 
  • cue overload -> the more items a cue is associated with, the less effective this cue will be in activating any of them
Q:

How does SAM account for the effects of organisation and interference?


A:
  • Organisation

Cue overload -> one reason why organisation facilitates memory is that organisation makes it possible for us to use more retrieval cues 

-> as more cues become available, each still leads us to only a few memories, but the total number of accessed memories increased substantially


  • Interference

cue overload -> the more events occur in the same context, the harder we will find it to remember any of         these events



Q:

The Rescorla-Wagner model shows how a few simple assumptions can be used to account for seemingly complex behavior. How does the model’s explanation of contingency illustrates this?


A:

 contingent A -> US………………….A -> US…………………

-> the US isn’t presented by itself (no stimulus occurs in a vacuum, there are always other stimuli)

-> better deception of contingent: AB -> US……….B -> US………..AB -> US………B -> US

    (B = background cues)

    -> B will elicit more than stimulus A 

 -> as the strength of the background cues increase, they begin to absorb a greater and greater share of the available strength (Vmax) until all is conditioned to B, none to A

   -> the model predicts that although fear will be conditioned to stimulus A initially, after extended training the nominal CS, stimulus A, will elicit no fear

   

Q:

How is Kamin’s concept of surprise incorporated within the Rescorla-Wagner model?

A:

Kamin showed with the blocking experiment that learning depends on some extent on the discrepancy between what happens to us and what we expected to happen

  • where Kamin has assumed that surprise determined whether conditioning occurs, Rescorla and Wagner extended this assumption -> the surprise would also determine how much conditioning occurs -> the more unexpected the US, the stronger the conditioning 

Q:

How does the model account for blocking?


A:
  • blocking: if two conditioned stimuli (a and b) were presented together, the subject would take both stimuli into account in estimating the likelihood of the US 

    -> the association at the beginning of a trial: Vab = Va + Vb

    -> the amount of conditioning on a compound trial :

    ΔVa = ΔVb = c (Vmax - Vab)

    - experiment: noise was paired with shock, then a noise-light compound was paired with shock

    V(noise) = 1.0

    Vnl = V(noise) + V(light) = 1.0 + 0 = 1.0

    the amount of conditioning to the light would be -> ΔV(light) = c (Vmax - Vnl) = 0.3 (1.0-1.0) = 0

    -> no conditioning would occur

Mehr Karteikarten anzeigen
Q:

There are two crucial tests of any theoretical model: Can it account for known phenomena and can it accurately predict new ones? What is an example of the Rescorla-Wagner model’s new predictions?


A:

over expectation effect: result of cues predicting US more strongly than it is justified

Q:

Is contiguity necessary of sufficient for conditioning? What is the relevant evidence?

A:

-> it is necessary but not sufficient 


evidence:

- Rescorla -> contingeny 


Q:

How did Garcia and Knelling show that the conditioning of a stronger aversion to a taste than to a light wasn’t simply the result of greater salience of the taste as a conditioned stimulus?


A:

-> they repeated their experiment with the same compound CS (taste-noise-light), but with electro shocks as the US instead of X rays -> the audiovisual stimulus produces suppression of drinking and the taste stimulus had no effect 

Q:

What assumptions did Hull and Tolman share in common? Where did they disagree?

A:

- acceptance of unobservable behavior/ mental states

-> similar position

- disagree about the nature of the internal states

Hull: simple associations

Tolman: more complex forms (expectations)

Q:

What is the equation used by Rescorla and Wagner to predict learning? What does each symbol represent?


A:

ΔVn = c (Vmax - Vn)


Vn = the strength of the association at the beginning of trial n

ΔVn = the change in the strength of the association produces by trial n

Vmax: asymptotic value of V

 c -> determines the speed of conditioning

Q:

How can the same equation be used to predict both conditioning and extinction?

A:
  • in conditioning:  ΔVn is positive because Vmax is 1

    - Vmax = 1.0, c = 0.3, the associative strength at the beginning of trial 1 is assumed to be zero

    ΔV1 = c (Vmax - V1) = 0.30 (1.0-0) = 0.30

    ΔV2 = c (Vmax - V2) = 0.30 (1.0-0.30) = 0.21


  • Extinction: ΔVn is negative because Vmax is 0

   example: on the first extinction trial, V would have an initial value of 0.66

    - result of nonreinforcement: ΔV1 = c (Vmax - V1) = 0.30 (0-0.66) = -0.198

    -> V2 = 0.66-0.2 = 0.46


Q:

How could the Pavlovian concepts of generalisation and counterconditioning be used to account for the success of systematic desensitisation?


A:

counterconditioning

-> when you pair the CS (phobic symbols) with the US that elicits a different response (relaxation): less likely that old response will occur the more strong the new connection is 

-> suppress the fear


generalisation

- is not only for one feared stimuli but for all of the feared stimuli (?)

Lernen & Gedächtnis

Erstelle und finde Lernmaterialien auf StudySmarter.

Greife kostenlos auf tausende geteilte Karteikarten, Zusammenfassungen, Altklausuren und mehr zu.

Jetzt loslegen

Das sind die beliebtesten StudySmarter Kurse für deinen Studiengang Lernen & Gedächtnis an der Bergische Universität Wuppertal

Für deinen Studiengang Lernen & Gedächtnis an der Bergische Universität Wuppertal gibt es bereits viele Kurse, die von deinen Kommilitonen auf StudySmarter erstellt wurden. Karteikarten, Zusammenfassungen, Altklausuren, Übungsaufgaben und mehr warten auf dich!

Das sind die beliebtesten Lernen & Gedächtnis Kurse im gesamten StudySmarter Universum

Lernen und Gedächtnis

Universität Frankfurt am Main

Zum Kurs
Lernen und Gedächtnis

Universität Koblenz-Landau

Zum Kurs

Die all-in-one Lernapp für Studierende

Greife auf Millionen geteilter Lernmaterialien der StudySmarter Community zu
Kostenlos anmelden Lernen & Gedächtnis
Erstelle Karteikarten und Zusammenfassungen mit den StudySmarter Tools
Kostenlos loslegen Lernen & Gedächtnis