Retrospective revaluation of associative retroactive cue interference

Blocking is not 'pure' cue competition: Renewal-like effects in forward and backward blocking indicate contributions by associative cue interference

Blocking (i.e., reduced responding to cue X following YX-outcome pairings in Phase 2 as a consequence of cue Y having been paired with the outcome in Phase 1) is one of the signature phenomena in Pavlovian conditioning. Its discovery promoted the development of multiple associative models, most of which viewed blocking as an instance of pure cue competition (i.e., a decrease in responding attributable to training two conditioned stimuli in compound). Two experiments are reported in which rats were examined in a fear conditioning paradigm (i.e., lick suppression), and context dependency of retrieval at test was used as an index of associative cue interference (i.e., a decrease in responding to a target cue as a result of training a second cue with the same outcome but without concurrent presentation of the two cues). Specifically, we observed renewal of forward-blocking which parallels renewal of proactive interference, and renewal of backward-blocking which parallels renewal of retroactive interference. Thus, both backward-blocking (Experiment 1, embedded in a sensory preconditioning design) and forward-blocking (Experiment 2, conducted in first-order conditioning) appear to be influenced by retroactive and proactive interference, respectively, as well as cue competition. Consequently, blocking, long regarded as a benchmark example of pure cue competition, is sometimes a hybrid of cue competition and associative interference. Finally, the Discussion considers whether stimulus competition and associative interference are two independent phenomena or products of a single underlying process. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Failures of memory and the fate of forgotten memories

This review is intended primarily to provide cognitive benchmarks and perhaps a new mindset for behavioral neuroscientists who study memory. Forgetting, defined here broadly as all types of decreases in acquired responding to stimulus-specific eliciting cues, is commonly attributed to one or more of the following families of mechanisms: (1) (4) associative interference by information similar to, but different from the target information, (2) spontaneous decay of memory with increasing retention intervals, (3) displacement from short-term memory by irrelevant information, and (4) inadequate retrieval cues at test. I briefly review each of these families and discuss data suggesting that many apparent instances of spontaneous forgetting and displacement from short-term memory can be viewed as variants of inadequate retrieval cues and associative interference. The potential for recovery of target information from each of these families of forgetting without further relevant training is then reviewed, with a conclusion that most forgetting is due to retrieval failure as opposed to irreversible erasure of memory. The more general point is made that there are logical problems with ever talking about attenuating or erasing a memory as a consequence of conventional forgetting or disrupted consolidation/reconsolidation. Consideration is then given to the frequently overlooked but highly beneficial consequences of most forgetting. Lastly, the major variables that moderate forgetting are summarized, including (a) the similarities of the target information including training context to the explicit retrieval cues and context present at test, (b) the similarities of potentially interfering acquired information to the retrieval cues and context present at test, and (c) the retention interval for the target information relative to that for the potentially interfering information. Appropriate manipulation of these variables can reduce forgetting, and increase forgetting when desired.

Translations in Stimulus-Stimulus Pairing: Autoshaping of Learner Vocalizations

Stimulus-stimulus pairing (SSP) is a procedure used by behavior analysis practitioners that capitalizes on respondent conditioning processes to elicit vocalizations. These procedures usually are implemented only after other, more customary methods (e.g., standard echoic training via modeling) have been exhausted. Unfortunately, SSP itself has mixed research support, probably because certain as-yet-unidentified procedural variations are more effective than others. Even when SSP produces (or increases) vocalizations, its effects can be short-lived. Although specific features of SSP differ across published accounts, fundamental characteristics include presentation of a vocal stimulus proximal with presentation of a preferred item. In the present article, we draw parallels between SSP procedures and autoshaping, review factors shown to affect autoshaping, and interpret autoshaping research for suggested SSP tests and applications. We then call for extended use and reporting of SSP in behavior-analytic treatments. Finally, three bridges created by this article are identified: basic-applied, respondent-operant, and behavior analysis with other sciences.

Stepping back from 'persistence and relapse' to see the forest: Associative interference

Historically, there has been considerable interest in a large variety of forms of associative interference. However, various factors including interest in clinical application and perhaps recent funding priorities have resulted in a narrowed focus on one particular instance of interference, extinction, with relative neglect of other types of interference. We have been using the existing literature and conducting new experiments to determine whether there is a consistent set of rules governing the occurrence and persistence of two-phase associative interference across (a) proactive and retroactive interference, (b) cue and outcome interference, (c) the type of training in phase 1 (excitatory, inhibitory, or simple nonreinforcement), and (d) the type of training in phase 2 (excitatory, inhibitory, or simple nonreinforcement). Our hope is that a return to more general questions concerning associative interference might reveal broad truths concerning the nature of forgetting. Identifying global principles of associative interference may also help us better appreciate the nature of extinction, including how it can be enhanced and made more enduring, as well as how it can be minimized and made more fleeting.