Keyboard Shortcuts?

×
  • →Next step
  • ←Previous step
  • ↓Skip this slide
  • ↑Previous slide
  • mShow slide thumbnails
  • nShow notes
  • hShow handout latex source
  • NShow talk notes latex source
When we think about motivational states, the most familiar kind is ...
 
--------
\subsection{slide-4}
... preference. These states change over time in under the influence of learning (and fashion, ...) I prefer chocolate over rhubarb right now, but might later have the reverse preference.
 
--------
\subsection{slide-5}
Another kind of motivational state is what animal learning theorists call ‘primary motivational states’.
 
--------
\subsection{slide-6}
These are not modifiable by data-driven learning (nor fashion), or at least not readily modifiable.
 
--------
\subsection{slide-7}
They inlcude hunger, thirst, lust and disgust.
 
--------
\subsection{slide-8}
Can your primary motivational states diverge from your preferences?
 
--------
\subsection{slide-9}
Premises
 
1. Toxicosis directly influences only primary motivational states.
 
--------
\subsection{slide-12}
2. Primary motivational states directly influence only stimulus-driven actions.
 
--------
\subsection{slide-13}
To a first approximation, the \emph{stimulus-driven} actions are those actions formed in the presence of stimuli because of the stimuli’s presence (not driven by representations of the stimulus).
 
--------
\subsection{slide-15}
You see a rat and a lever. The rat presses the lever occasionally. Now you start rewarding the rat: when it presses the lever it is rewarded with a particular kind of food. As a consequence, the rat presses the lever more often.
 
\subsection{Devaluation - standard procedure} \begin{itemize} \item Training: Rat is put in chamber with Lever; pressing Lever dispenses sucrose (novel food). \item Devaluation: Rat is taken into another chamber, poisoned, and then exposed to sucrose. \item Extinction Test: Rat returns to chamber with Lever; pressing Lever does nothing. \end{itemize}
 
--------
\subsection{slide-19}
‘Mean lever-press rates during the extinction (left-hand panel) and reacquisition tests (right-handpanel) followingthe devaluation of either the contingent (group D-N) or non-contingentfood (group N-D).’
 
--------
\subsection{slide-25}
‘Experiment I: Mean number of lever presses ... during the extinction test session ... The various groups received either immediate (Groups IMM/SUC and IMM/ H20) or delayed (Groups DELjSUC and DEL/H2O) toxicosis [delayed did not cause aversion] and were re-exposed either to the sucrose solution (Groups IMM/SUC and DEL/SUC) or to water (Groups IMM/H2O and DEL/H20).’
 
--------
\subsection{slide-26}
Pavlovain conditioning, primary motivational states can have a direct effect on actions.
 
--------
\subsection{slide-29}
‘The pattern of results accords [...] with a role for an incentive learning process in the reinforcer devaluation effect;
not only must consumption of the reinforcer be paired with toxicosis,
--------
\subsection{slide-30}
the animals must also have an opportunity to contact the reinforcer after aversion conditioning if there is to be a change in instrumental performance’
\citep[p.~293]{balleine:1991_instrumental}
 
--------
\subsection{slide-31}
[To introduce the term ‘incentive learning’]
 
--------
\subsection{slide-32}
A moment ago I asked, What happens if we poison the subjects but do not re-expose them to the food?
 
--------
\subsection{slide-33}
The two kinds of motivational states can dissociate
 
Preferences are one kind of motivational state. These states change under the influence of data-driven learning and fashion, among other things. I prefer chocolate over rhubarb right now, but might later have the reverse preference.
 
Another kind of motivational state is what animal learning theorists call ‘primary motivational states’.
 
These are not modifiable by data-driven learning (nor fashion), or at least not readily modifiable.
 
They inlcude hunger, thirst, lust and disgust.
 
Can your primary motivational states diverge from your preferences?
 
Premises
 
1. Toxicosis directly influences only primary motivational states.
 
2. Primary motivational states directly influence only stimulus-driven actions.
 
To a first approximation, the \emph{stimulus-driven} actions are those actions formed in the presence of stimuli because of the stimuli’s presence (not driven by representations of the stimulus).
 
\subsection{Devaluation - standard procedure} \begin{itemize} \item Training: Rat is put in chamber with Lever; pressing Lever dispenses sucrose (novel food). \item Devaluation: Rat is taken into another chamber, poisoned, and then exposed to sucrose. \item Extinction Test: Rat returns to chamber with Lever; pressing Lever does nothing. \end{itemize}
 
‘The pattern of results accords [...] with a role for an incentive learning process in the reinforcer devaluation effect;
not only must consumption of the reinforcer be paired with toxicosis,
the animals must also have an opportunity to contact the reinforcer after aversion conditioning if there is to be a change in instrumental performance’
\citep[p.~293]{balleine:1991_instrumental}
 

Click here and press the right key for the next slide (or swipe left)