An Exploration of Individual and Collective Reversal Learning in Rats.

IF 2.5 3区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL
Perspectives on Behavior Science Pub Date : 2025-05-02 eCollection Date: 2025-06-01 DOI:10.1007/s40614-025-00450-8
Matthew Gildea, Cristina Santos, Carter D Bower, Adeline Hibshman, Takao Sasaki, Federico Sanabria
{"title":"An Exploration of Individual and Collective Reversal Learning in Rats.","authors":"Matthew Gildea, Cristina Santos, Carter D Bower, Adeline Hibshman, Takao Sasaki, Federico Sanabria","doi":"10.1007/s40614-025-00450-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Although associative learning research has been conducted for more than a century, little is known about learning processes when subjects are not alone, but in a group-a phenomenon termed <i>collective learning</i>. In collective learning situations, the behavior of conspecifics may serve as an associative cue for learning, like any other stimulus during individual learning. Two experiments investigated how individual versus collective training affects associative learning. Experiment 1 utilized a simultaneous discrimination task, whereas Experiment 2 implemented a serial go/no-go discrimination task. In both experiments, rats were trained either individually or collectively, exposing them to two distinct stimuli with only one of them signaling the availability of food reinforcement. Following acquisition training, all rats were tested both individually and collectively. Contingencies were then reversed: the previously nonreinforced stimulus now signaled the availability of food, and the previously reinforced stimulus now signaled the absence of food. Following reversal training, the rats were again tested individually and collectively. Results from both experiments suggest that the training condition (individual or collective) had little effect on learning the cue-outcome association. However, individual training negatively affected test performance in a collective context. These results suggest that collective training may have a facilitative effect on learning and points out key methodological considerations for more in-depth examination of this effect.</p><p><strong>Supplementary information: </strong>The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40614-025-00450-8.</p>","PeriodicalId":44993,"journal":{"name":"Perspectives on Behavior Science","volume":"48 2","pages":"269-288"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12162449/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Perspectives on Behavior Science","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40614-025-00450-8","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/6/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Although associative learning research has been conducted for more than a century, little is known about learning processes when subjects are not alone, but in a group-a phenomenon termed collective learning. In collective learning situations, the behavior of conspecifics may serve as an associative cue for learning, like any other stimulus during individual learning. Two experiments investigated how individual versus collective training affects associative learning. Experiment 1 utilized a simultaneous discrimination task, whereas Experiment 2 implemented a serial go/no-go discrimination task. In both experiments, rats were trained either individually or collectively, exposing them to two distinct stimuli with only one of them signaling the availability of food reinforcement. Following acquisition training, all rats were tested both individually and collectively. Contingencies were then reversed: the previously nonreinforced stimulus now signaled the availability of food, and the previously reinforced stimulus now signaled the absence of food. Following reversal training, the rats were again tested individually and collectively. Results from both experiments suggest that the training condition (individual or collective) had little effect on learning the cue-outcome association. However, individual training negatively affected test performance in a collective context. These results suggest that collective training may have a facilitative effect on learning and points out key methodological considerations for more in-depth examination of this effect.

Supplementary information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40614-025-00450-8.

大鼠个体与集体逆向学习的探索。
虽然联想学习的研究已经进行了一个多世纪,但人们对学习过程知之甚少,当受试者不是单独的时候,而是在一个群体中,这种现象被称为集体学习。在集体学习情境中,同个体的行为可以作为学习的联想线索,就像个体学习中的任何其他刺激一样。两个实验调查了个体训练和集体训练对联想学习的影响。实验1采用同步辨别任务,而实验2采用串行去/不去辨别任务。在这两个实验中,大鼠要么单独训练,要么集体训练,让它们接受两种不同的刺激,其中只有一种暗示食物强化的可用性。在习得训练后,对所有大鼠进行单独和集体测试。随后,偶然性被逆转了:之前未被强化的刺激现在表示有食物,而之前被强化的刺激现在表示没有食物。在逆转训练之后,再次对大鼠进行单独和集体测试。两个实验的结果都表明,训练条件(个人或集体)对线索-结果关联的学习影响不大。然而,在集体环境下,个人训练会对考试成绩产生负面影响。这些结果表明,集体训练可能对学习有促进作用,并指出了对这种影响进行更深入研究的关键方法考虑。补充信息:在线版本包含补充资料,下载地址为10.1007/s40614-025-00450-8。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Perspectives on Behavior Science
Perspectives on Behavior Science PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
10.00%
发文量
34
期刊介绍: Perspectives on Behavior Science is an official publication of the Association for Behavior Analysis International. It is published quarterly, and in addition to its articles on theoretical, experimental, and applied topics in behavior analysis, this journal also includes literature reviews, re-interpretations of published data, and articles on behaviorism as a philosophy.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信