The document outlines an experimental design called 'feature reversal' which tests various associative learning theories using colored squares as stimuli. Preliminary results indicate that responding to a specific stimulus (b) is significantly less than to another (a), contrasting predictions from several models, including Rescorla & Wagner and Pearce. The experiment involved 60 subjects from a psychology department and aims to refine understanding of how similarity between stimuli affects associative learning responses.

1. FEATURE REVERSAL: A NEW TEST OF ASSOCIATIVE LEARNING THEORIES
Goldy Landau, Kinsborough Community College-CUNY, Kristie Tse, Brooklyn College-CUNY, Furness Norton, Brooklyn
College-CUNY, Stefano Ghirlanda, Brooklyn College-CUNY and Stockholm University Center for the Study of Cultural Evolution
* The finding RB<RA is compatible with the “replaced elements” model
and, potentially with the Pearce (1994) model.
* At the end of data collection, information about responding to B as
a function of A-B similarity will be used evaluate the differential
predictions of the "replaced elements" and Pearce (1994) models.
DISCUSSION
Pearce, John M., and Geoffrey Hall. "A Model for Pavlovian Learning: Variations in the
Effectiveness of Conditioned but Not of Unconditioned Stimuli." Psychological Review 87.6
(1980): 532-52. Print.
Pearce, John M., and Mark E. Bouton. "Tala." Annual Review of Psychology 52.1 (2001):
111-39. Print.
Pearce, John M. "Similarity and Discrimination: A Selective Review and a Connectionist
Model." Psychological Review 101.4 (1994): 587-607. Print.
Rescorla, R. A., and P. C. Holland. "Behavioral Studies of Associative Learning in Animals."
Annual Review of Psychology 33.1 (1982): 265-308. Print.
Wagner, Allan R., and Edgar H. Vogel. "Configural and Elemental Processing in Associative
Learning: Commentary on Melchers, Shanks and Lachnit." Behavioural Processes 77.3
(2008): 446-50. Print.
REFERENCES
We have collected data from 28 subjects to date, out of the planned 60.
Due to limited sample size we are not yet able to assess the influence of A-B
similarity on responding to B at test. When averaged across different
A-B similarity conditions the data show significantly less responding
to B than was observed to A at the end of phase 1 (p<10^-10, repeated
measure ANOVA comparing responding to A during the last 5 trials of
phase 1 to responding to B during the 5 test trials).
RESULTS
We calculated the predictions of various associative learning models in the “feature
reversal” design. Let RA be responding to A at the end of phase one, and RB responding to
B at test.
Model predictions are as follows:
• Rescorla & Wagner (1972): RA = RB, independent of A-B similarity
• Pearce (1987): RB<RA when A-B very different, but RB>RA when A-B similar
• Pearce (1994): RB>RA always, but less so with increasing A-B similarity
• “Replaced elements” model: RB<RA always, but less so with increasing A-B similarity.
These predictions have been obtained in our lab by computer simulation of the theories or
by explicit mathematical calculation.
THEORY
• 60 Brooklyn College students participated in the experiment. Participants were drawn
from the psychology department’s subject pool and received course credit for
participating.
• Participants are assigned a Dell OptiPlex 745 computer, running on a Windows XP OS,
and a standard U.S. Dell keyboard. Information is displayed on a 17” Dell monitor.
• The experiment is programmed with and runs on the Psychology Experiment Building
Language (PEBL) software system.
MATERIALS & METHODS
Theories of learning aim at elucidating how organisms utilize experiences to guide behavior
in similar future conditions. Here we present results from a new experimental design,
dubbed “feature reversal,” aimed at contrasting several theories of associative learning: the
Rescorla & Wagner (1972) model, the “replaced elements model” (REM) of Brandon et al.
(2000), and the “configural model” of Pearce (1987, 1994). The experiment has two
learning phases and a final test. The first phase consists of reinforced presentations of
stimulus A; the second phase of unreinforced presentations of A intermixed with reinforced
presentations of A together with a second stimulus B. Schematically:
Phase 1: A+; Phase 2: A0, AB+
In the final test, responding to B alone is assessed – different models making different
predictions. Varying the similarity between A and B further differentiates model predictions
(see THEORY). We ran this experiment using colored squares as stimuli A and B,
presented on a computer screen. We planned to collect data from 60 subjects, divided into
three groups with varying similarity between A and B. Subjects where instructed that
pressing the spacebar in response to some stimuli would cause a smiley face to appear,
and that they had to learn to press solely in response to those stimuli which they thought
would yield a smiley face. Thus the smiley face served to reinforce pressing the spacebar.
INTRODUCTION
• The background of the screen display remains gray throughout the experiment. Three
different colored squares (A, B, C) measuring 50 pixels in side are presented on the
screen during the experiment. The three colors are blue, red, and purple. Except for
color differences, all three stimuli are the same.
• A round smiley face (black circle with two black dot eyes and a black semi-circle smile
on gray background) is used and displayed at the center of the screen.
• In the first phase, individual stimuli are shown in the center of the screen.
• During phase 2, when two stimuli are presented together on the screen, stimulus A is
shown in the center and stimulus B is displayed 15 pixels to the right of A.
PROCEDURE