{"title":"后向高阶条件反射研究综述:巴甫洛夫条件反射分析对刺激等价性的启示","authors":"Benigno Alonso-Alvarez","doi":"10.1007/s40614-023-00385-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Stimulus equivalence (SE) is demonstrated when participants exposed to conditional discrimination training pass tests for reflexivity, symmetry, transitivity, and equivalence (symmetry combined with transitivity). Most theorists attribute the origin of SE to operant processes, but some argue that it results from Pavlovian conditioning. Symmetry is problematic for the latter hypothesis because it seems to require excitatory backward conditioning. However, equivalence tests resemble backward sensory preconditioning (BSP) and backward second-order conditioning (BSOC), two well-established processes. A review of associationistic theories of BSP and BSOC showed that the temporal coding hypothesis (TCH) explains outcomes that other associationistic theories cannot explain (i.e., BSOC and BSP effects after first-order conditioning with delay vs. trace conditioning and forward vs. backward conditioning). The TCH assumes that organisms encode the temporal attributes of stimulus events (e.g., order and interval duration) and this temporal information is integrated across separate phases of training. The TCH seems compatible with a behavioral analysis if direct stimulus control replaces the notion of temporal maps. The TCH perspective does not seem applicable to SE because SE tests are not predictive tasks. This suggests that SE is fundamentally different from BSP and BSOC and a Pavlovian conditioning analysis of SE is inadequate. This conclusion is consistent with previous criticism of a Pavlovian account of SE according to which Pavlovian conditioning cannot be interpreted as stimulus substitution.</p>","PeriodicalId":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10733237/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Review of Backward Higher-Order Conditioning: Implications for a Pavlovian Conditioning Analysis of Stimulus Equivalence.\",\"authors\":\"Benigno Alonso-Alvarez\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s40614-023-00385-y\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Stimulus equivalence (SE) is demonstrated when participants exposed to conditional discrimination training pass tests for reflexivity, symmetry, transitivity, and equivalence (symmetry combined with transitivity). Most theorists attribute the origin of SE to operant processes, but some argue that it results from Pavlovian conditioning. Symmetry is problematic for the latter hypothesis because it seems to require excitatory backward conditioning. However, equivalence tests resemble backward sensory preconditioning (BSP) and backward second-order conditioning (BSOC), two well-established processes. A review of associationistic theories of BSP and BSOC showed that the temporal coding hypothesis (TCH) explains outcomes that other associationistic theories cannot explain (i.e., BSOC and BSP effects after first-order conditioning with delay vs. trace conditioning and forward vs. backward conditioning). The TCH assumes that organisms encode the temporal attributes of stimulus events (e.g., order and interval duration) and this temporal information is integrated across separate phases of training. The TCH seems compatible with a behavioral analysis if direct stimulus control replaces the notion of temporal maps. The TCH perspective does not seem applicable to SE because SE tests are not predictive tasks. This suggests that SE is fundamentally different from BSP and BSOC and a Pavlovian conditioning analysis of SE is inadequate. This conclusion is consistent with previous criticism of a Pavlovian account of SE according to which Pavlovian conditioning cannot be interpreted as stimulus substitution.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":2,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ACS Applied Bio Materials\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-07-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10733237/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ACS Applied Bio Materials\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40614-023-00385-y\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/12/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40614-023-00385-y","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/12/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
当接受条件辨别训练的参与者通过反射性、对称性、传递性和等价性(对称性与传递性相结合)测试时,就证明了刺激等价性(SE)。大多数理论家将 SE 的起源归结为操作过程,但也有人认为它是巴甫洛夫条件反射的结果。对称性对于后一种假设来说是有问题的,因为它似乎需要兴奋性后向条件反射。然而,等效测试类似于后向感觉预条件作用(BSP)和后向二阶条件作用(BSOC),这是两个已被证实的过程。对 BSP 和 BSOC 关联理论的回顾表明,时间编码假说(TCH)可以解释其他关联理论无法解释的结果(即一阶条件反射后的 BSOC 和 BSP 效应,延迟条件反射与追踪条件反射以及前向条件反射与后向条件反射)。TCH 假设生物体对刺激事件的时间属性(如顺序和间隔时间)进行编码,并在不同的训练阶段整合这些时间信息。如果直接刺激控制取代了时间图谱的概念,TCH 似乎与行为分析相兼容。TCH观点似乎不适用于SE,因为SE测试不是预测性任务。这表明,SE 从根本上不同于 BSP 和 BSOC,对 SE 进行巴甫洛夫条件反射分析是不够的。这一结论与之前对巴甫洛夫式 SE 解释的批评是一致的,巴甫洛夫式条件反射不能被解释为刺激替代。
A Review of Backward Higher-Order Conditioning: Implications for a Pavlovian Conditioning Analysis of Stimulus Equivalence.
Stimulus equivalence (SE) is demonstrated when participants exposed to conditional discrimination training pass tests for reflexivity, symmetry, transitivity, and equivalence (symmetry combined with transitivity). Most theorists attribute the origin of SE to operant processes, but some argue that it results from Pavlovian conditioning. Symmetry is problematic for the latter hypothesis because it seems to require excitatory backward conditioning. However, equivalence tests resemble backward sensory preconditioning (BSP) and backward second-order conditioning (BSOC), two well-established processes. A review of associationistic theories of BSP and BSOC showed that the temporal coding hypothesis (TCH) explains outcomes that other associationistic theories cannot explain (i.e., BSOC and BSP effects after first-order conditioning with delay vs. trace conditioning and forward vs. backward conditioning). The TCH assumes that organisms encode the temporal attributes of stimulus events (e.g., order and interval duration) and this temporal information is integrated across separate phases of training. The TCH seems compatible with a behavioral analysis if direct stimulus control replaces the notion of temporal maps. The TCH perspective does not seem applicable to SE because SE tests are not predictive tasks. This suggests that SE is fundamentally different from BSP and BSOC and a Pavlovian conditioning analysis of SE is inadequate. This conclusion is consistent with previous criticism of a Pavlovian account of SE according to which Pavlovian conditioning cannot be interpreted as stimulus substitution.