Novel sensory preconditioning procedures identify a specific role for the hippocampus in pattern completion

Not "either-or" but "which-when": A review of the evidence for integration in sensory preconditioning

Sensory preconditioning protocols can be used to assess how the brain integrates memories that share common features. In these protocols, animals are first exposed to pairings of two relatively innocuous stimuli, S2 and S1 (stage 1), and then to pairings of one of these stimuli, S1, with an event of motivational significance (stage 2). Following this training, test presentations of S2 elicit responses appropriate to the motivationally significant event, and these responses are taken to indicate formation of distinct S2-S1 and S1-event memories that are integrated in some way to generate that responding. This paper reviews studies of sensory preconditioning in rats, mice, rabbits and people to determine whether S2-S1 and S1-event memories are integrated through a chaining process at the time of their retrieval (i.e., test presentations of S2 trigger retrieval of S1, and thereby, responses appropriate to the event); or "online" at the time of memory formation (i.e., in stage 2, S1 activates a representation of S2 such that both stimuli associate with the motivationally significant event). It finds that the type of integration is determined by the manner in which stimuli are presented in preconditioning as well as their familiarity. When the stimuli in preconditioning are presented repeatedly and/or serially (i.e., one after the other), the S2-S1 and S1-event memories are chained at the time of retrieval/testing. In contrast, when the stimuli in preconditioning are relatively novel and/or presented simultaneously, the S2-S1 and S1-event memories are integrated online. These statements are related to prior claims regarding the circumstances that promote different types of memory integration and, more generally, mechanisms of information processing in the mammalian brain.

Higher-Order Conditioning: What Is Learnt and How it Is Expressed

Pairing a neutral conditioned stimulus (CS) with a motivationally significant unconditioned stimulus (US) results in the CS coming to elicit conditioned responses (CRs). The widespread significance and translational value of Pavlovian conditioning are increased by the fact that pairing two neutral CSs (A and X) enables conditioning with X to affect behavior to A. There are two traditional informal accounts of such higher-order conditioning, which build on more formal associative analyses of Pavlovian conditioning. But, higher-order conditioning and Pavlovian conditioning have characteristics that are beyond these accounts: Notably, the two are influenced in different ways by the same experimental manipulations, and both generate conditioned responses that do not reflect the US per se. Here, we present a formal analysis that sought to address these characteristics.

Neural Substrates of Incidental Associations and Mediated Learning: The Role of Cannabinoid Receptors

The ability to form associations between different stimuli in the environment to guide adaptive behavior is a central element of learning processes, from perceptual learning in humans to Pavlovian conditioning in animals. Like so, classical conditioning paradigms that test direct associations between low salience sensory stimuli and high salience motivational reinforcers are extremely informative. However, a large part of everyday learning cannot be solely explained by direct conditioning mechanisms - this includes to a great extent associations between individual sensory stimuli, carrying low or null immediate motivational value. This type of associative learning is often described as incidental learning and can be captured in animal models through sensory preconditioning procedures. Here we summarize the evolution of research on incidental and mediated learning, overview the brain systems involved and describe evidence for the role of cannabinoid receptors in such higher-order learning tasks. This evidence favors a number of contemporary hypotheses concerning the participation of the endocannabinoid system in psychosis and psychotic experiences and provides a conceptual framework for understanding how the use of cannabinoid drugs can lead to altered perceptive states.

Mediated configural learning in rats

Three experiments investigated mediated configural learning in male rats. In Experiment 1, after exposure to audio-visual compounds AX and BY, rats received trials where X was paired with shock, and Y was not. The idea that conditioning with X enables the evoked configural representation of AX to be linked to shock received support from the facts that while AX provoked more fear than BX, there was no difference between BY and AY. Similarly, Experiment 2 showed that after exposure to AX and BY, separate pairings of X and Y with shock resulted in more fear to AX and BY than AY and BX. In Experiment 3, rats in group consistent received separate exposures to A and X in Context C, and B and Y in D, while those in group inconsistent received A and X (and B and Y) in both C and D. After rats had received shocks in both C and D, rats in group consistent showed more fear to AX and BY than to BX and AY, but this was not the case in group inconsistent. These results indicate that configural representations, formed either by presenting auditory and visual stimuli as parts of a compound or in a shared context, are subject to a process of mediated learning.

Conditioning with spatio-temporal patterns: Constraining the contribution of the hippocampus to configural learning

The conditions under which the hippocampus contributes to learning about spatio-temporal configural patterns are not fully established. The aim of Experiments 1-4 was to investigate the impact of hippocampal lesions on learning about where or when a reinforcer would be delivered. In each experiment, the rats received exposure to an identical set of patterns (i.e., spotted+morning, checked+morning, spotted+afternoon and checked+afternoon); and the contexts (Experiment 1), times of day (Experiment 2), or their configuration (Experiments 3 and 4) signalled whether or not a reinforcer would be delivered. The fact that hippocampal damage did not disrupt the formation of simple or configural associations involving spatio-temporal patterns is surprising, and suggests that the contribution of the hippocampus is restricted to mediated learning (or updating) involving spatio-temporal configurations.