The fate of redundant cues in human predictive learning

Can We Set Aside Previous Experience in a Familiar Causal Scenario?

Causal and predictive learning research often employs intuitive and familiar hypothetical scenarios to facilitate learning novel relationships. The allergist task, in which participants are asked to diagnose the allergies of a fictitious patient, is one example of this. In such studies, it is common practice to ask participants to ignore their existing knowledge of the scenario and make judgments based only on the relationships presented within the experiment. Causal judgments appear to be sensitive to instructions that modify assumptions about the scenario. However, the extent to which prior knowledge continues to affect competition for associative learning, even after participants are instructed to disregard it, is unknown. To answer this, we created a cue competition design that capitalized on prevailing beliefs about the allergenic properties of various foods. High and low allergenic foods were paired with foods moderately associated with allergy to create two compounds; high + moderate and low + moderate. We expected high allergenic foods to produce greater competition for associative memory than low allergenic foods. High allergenic foods may affect learning either because they generate a strong memory of allergy or because they are more salient in the context of the task. We therefore also manipulated the consistency of the high allergenic cue-outcome relationship with prior beliefs about the nature of the allergies. A high allergenic food that is paired with an inconsistent allergenic outcome should generate more prediction error and thus more competition for learning, than one that is consistent with prior beliefs. Participants were instructed to either use or ignore their knowledge of food allergies to complete the task. We found that while participants were able to set aside their prior knowledge when making causal judgments about the foods in question, associative memory was weaker for the cues paired with highly allergenic foods than cues paired with low allergenic foods regardless of instructions. The consistency manipulation had little effect on this result, suggesting that the effects in associative memory are most likely driven by selective attention to highly allergenic cues. This has implications for theories of causal learning as well as the way causal learning tasks are designed.

The redundancy effect is related to a lack of conditioned inhibition: Evidence from a task in which excitation and inhibition are symmetrical

Rescorla and Wagner’s model of learning describes excitation and inhibition as symmetrical opposites. However, tasks used in human causal learning experiments, such as the allergist task, generally involve learning about cues leading to the presence or absence of the outcome, which may not reflect this assumption. This is important when considering learning effects which provide a challenge to this model, such as the redundancy effect. The redundancy effect describes higher causal ratings for the blocked cue X than for the uncorrelated cue Y in the design A+/AX+/BY+/CY–, the opposite pattern to that predicted by the Rescorla–Wagner model, which predicts higher associative strength for Y than for X. Crucially, this prediction depends on cue C gaining some inhibitory associative strength. In this article, we used a task in which cues could have independent inhibitory effects on the outcome, to investigate whether a lack of inhibition was related to the redundancy effect. In Experiment 1, inhibition for C was not detected in the allergist task, supporting this possibility. Three further experiments using the alternative task showed that a lack of inhibition was related to the redundancy effect: the redundancy effect was smaller when C was rated as inhibitory. Individual variation in the strength of inhibition for C also determined the size of the redundancy effect. Given that weak inhibition was detected in the alternative scenario but not in the allergist task, we recommend carefully choosing the type of task used to investigate associative learning phenomena, as it may influence results.

How competitive is cue competition?

Cue competition refers to phenomena indicating that learning about the relationship between a cue and an outcome is influenced by learning about the predictive significance of other cues that are concurrently present. In two autoshaping experiments with pigeons, we investigated the strength of competition among cues for predictive value. In each experiment, animals received an overexpectation training (A+, D+ followed by AD+). In addition, the training schedule of each experiment comprised two control conditions-one condition to evaluate the presence of overexpectation (B+ followed by BY+) and a second one to assess the strength of competition among cues (C+ followed by CZ-). Training trials were followed by a test with individual stimuli (A, B, C). Experiment 1 revealed no evidence for cue competition as responding during the test mirrored the individual cue-outcome contingencies. The test results from Experiment 2, which included an outcome additivity training, showed cue competition in form of an overexpectation effect as responding was weaker for Stimulus A than Stimulus B. However, the test results from Experiment 2 also revealed that responding to Stimulus A was stronger than to Stimulus C, which indicates that competition among cues was not as strong as predicted by some influential theories of associative learning.

The fate of redundant cues in human predictive learning: The outcome ratio effect

In four experiments, participants were shown a sequence of pairs of pictures of food and asked to predict whether each pair signalled an allergic reaction in a hypothetical patient. The pairs of pictures were used to present two simple discriminations that differed in their outcome ratio. A rich discrimination, 3AX+ BX−, involved three trials in which the compound of two foods, AX, was followed by a reaction, for every trial in which the compound BX was not followed by the outcome. A lean discrimination, CY+ 3DY− was based on the opposite outcome ratio. Upon the completion of this training, participants were asked to rate how likely an individual food would be followed by the allergic reaction. In each experiment, the rating for X was stronger than for Y. This outcome ratio effect poses a challenge for theories of learning that assume changes in associative strength are governed by a common error term, based on the significance of all the cues present on a trial. Instead, the results are consistent with the assumption that changes in associative strength are governed by an individual error term, based on the significance of a single cue.

A test for a difference in the associability of blocked and uninformative cues in human predictive learning

In human predictive learning, blocking, A+ AB+, and a simple discrimination, UX+ VX–, result in a stronger response to the blocked, B, than the uninformative cue, X (where letters represent cues and + and – represent different outcomes). To assess whether these different treatments result in more attention being paid to blocked than uninformative cues, Stage 1 in each of three experiments generated two blocked cues, B and E, and two uninformative cues, X and Y. In Stage 2, participants received two simple discriminations: either BX+ EX– and BY+ EY–, or BX+ BY– and EX+ EY–. If more attention is paid to blocked than uninformative cues, then the first pair of discriminations will be solved more readily than the second pair. In contrast to this prediction, both discriminations were acquired at the same rate. These results are explained by the theory of Mackintosh, by virtue of the assumption that learning is governed by an individual rather than a common error term.

The redundancy effect in human causal learning: No evidence for changes in selective attention

Several recent papers have reported a difference in associative learning for two kinds of redundant cues, such that a blocked cue (e.g., X in A+ AX+) apparently forms a stronger association with the outcome than an uncorrelated cue (e.g., Y in BY+ CY-). This difference is referred to as the redundancy effect, and is of interest because it is contrary to the predictions of a number of popular learning models. One way of reconciling these models with the redundancy effect is to assume that the amount of attention paid to redundant cues changes as a result of experience, and that these changes in attention influence subsequent learning. Here, we present two experiments designed to evaluate this idea, in which we measured overt attention using an eye tracker while participants completed a learning task that elicited the redundancy effect. In both experiments, gaze duration was longer for uncorrelated cues than for blocked cues, but this difference disappeared when we divided gaze durations by trial durations. In Experiment 2, we failed to observe any difference in gaze duration when blocked and uncorrelated cues were subsequently presented together. While the observed difference in gaze duration for the two types of redundant cue may contribute to differences in learning during initial training, we suggest that the principal causes of the redundancy effect are likely to lie elsewhere.

The fate of redundant cues: Further analysis of the redundancy effect

Pearce, Dopson, Haselgrove, and Esber (Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 38, 167–179, 2012) conducted a series of experiments with rats and pigeons in which the conditioned responding elicited by two types of redundant cue was compared. One of these redundant cues was a blocked cue X from A+ AX+ training, whereas the other was cue Y from a simple discrimination BY+ CY–. Greater conditioned responding was elicited by X than by Y; we refer to this difference as the redundancy effect. To test an explanation of this effect in terms of comparator theory (Denniston, Savastano, & Miller, 2001), a single group of rats in Experiment 1 received training of the form A+ AX+ BY+ CY–, followed by an A– Y+ discrimination. Responding to the individual cues was tested both before and after the latter discrimination. In addition to a replication of the redundancy effect during the earlier test, we observed stronger responding to B than to X, both during the earlier test and, in contradiction of the theory, after the A– Y+ discrimination. In Experiment 2, a blocking group received A+ AX+, a continuous group received AX+ BX–, and a partial group received AX± BX± training. Subsequent tests with X again demonstrated the redundancy effect, but also revealed a stronger response in the partial than in the continuous group. This pattern of results is difficult to explain with error-correction theories that assume that stimuli compete for associative strength during conditioning. We suggest, instead, that the influence of a redundant cue is determined by its relationship with the event with which it is paired, and by the attention it is paid.