Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

intro to animal studies - Coggle Diagram

- - - - Colwill and Rescorla 1985: stage1 training rats pressed a lever for food and a chain for sucrose, stage 2 the food brought sickness and the sucrose did nothing, testing the rats did not press the lever for food but pulled the chain for sucrose - the food brought about a bad outcome so the rats did not exhibit a response for the food so not quite the law of effect
- - - - innate categorisation: animals can only categorise what they and their ancestors see naturally out in the wild - animals can categorise things like cars and paintings so not an explanation for categorisation
      - exemplar learning - the pigeons were learning snapshots of the photos that gave them the food but this doesnt explain the translation of the behaviour to new stim
      - feature learning: pigeons learnt features of the photos like lines and colours that gave them the food, but w this there should be a perfect behaviour translation to new stim but there isn't only a good one
      - exemplar learning and stim generalisation - as long as the new stim had something similar to the old stim then the same behaviour should occur
    - - wagner 1976 - when there was a 150s gap between tones the habituation was lessened so theres a period where habituation is active - wagner's memory theory: a stim is transformed into a decaying representation in the mind as rehearsal, then this is passed on to STM where theres some decay delay between there and LTM
      - effector fatigue: when the phsyio system is tired of receiving stim altogether - nope cos whitlow did his experiemtn again but put tone 2 at a different pitch and the system responded to this new tone in a fresh sense so it wasnt tired
      - receptor fatigue: the actual receptor cells for that partic tone were tired, not the whole system. whitlow redid the experiment but put a distractor half way through (a buzz or a flash of light) which made dishabituation and the response to the tone was renewed - retroactive interference - animal memory is not a conscious recall
      - retroactive interference w mazes: beatty and shavalia 1980 - seeing friends and spending time outside of a learned maze didn't interrupt the rats' memories of the maze
        roberts 1981: when rats ran down 4 arms of a radial maze, taken out then put back, they could still remember which ones they'd seen and which ones were unexplored because of landmarks
      - stm properties: olton 1978 and radial mazes: a maze that had a main centre and then 8 arms coming out of it. theres food on the end of the arms. in the beginning the rats were random with their running but they remember which ones theyd been down
    - - consolidation: hebb 1949 ltm is made through physical changes to the nervous system and consolidation is needed for the changes to be made
        duncan 1949 - gave rat electric shocks to train them to move from one side of the box to another when a light comes on. shocks to the brain impaired the encoding of the memory so the rats actedd as though they hadn't learnt the association
      - consolidation and retention are automatic, forgetting is retrieval failure
      - deweer et al 1980 - trained rats to solve a maze then took them out for 25 days and put them back in to see how fast they would resolve the maze. rats who had a 90s reminder before they were let loose had shorter solution times 40s vs 150 s
- - - - CR substitution: autoshaping: when a light precedes some food coming, then the learning is changing the neutral qualities of the light to be the appetising qualities of the food within the animal. when doing it with pigeons, they pecked at the light when it showed cos they associated the light w the reward - open beak for food reward closed beak for water. stim substitution - the reward is being subbed for the light so give the light that behaviour
      - CR prepatory response- pavlov's doggos learnt the appetitive qualities of the food so when they heard the bell and began salivating they were preparing for the food
        conditioned suppression - when the ucs has aversive qualities then the behaviour exhibited at the cs will be suppressed in prep for the bad ucs - when a rat is in a skinners box and is happily pressing a lever for food, it will stop this behaviour when a light forwarning a shock from the floor because of suppression even tho the suppression will do nothing
        a pigeon would stand next to the food tray in a skinner's box but would go peck the light that turns on at the other side of the box then come back to the food tray
      - CR opposing response to stim: drug tolerances seigal 2005: tolerance can come from bio mechanisms (metabolic changes, synaptic changes) and psych mechanisms (conditioning preps for oncoming physio changes) . when ppl have reg injections of morphine, the CR is prepping for the physio changes from the morphine, so when the drug is in affect homeostasis of the body is maintained so no pain relief
        
        ppl can get drug tolerances in context a but then the tolerance is gone by context b
        seigel et al 1981 - group 1 rats context a=ethanol context b=saline, group 2 rats context a=saline context b=ethanol, testing both in context a, group 1 raise temp when given saline maintain temp when given ethanol, group 1 lower temp when given ethanol and maintain when given saline - ethanol lowers body temp.
        
        siegel 1977: stage 1 group 1 group 2 rats given morphine, stage 2 group 1 given saline group 2 rest, testing both got morphine and then put on hot plates. group 1 took more time to lift up their paws than group 2 because they had gone through extinction so the effects of morphine were in full force
        
        extinction for drug use is context related. when taking drugs in a consistent place then theres a drug tolerance so thhe drug users up the dose, then hen they go to another place they take a tolerance dose and then OD
        
        seigel et al 1982: stage 1 group 1 got heroin context a, group 2 got heroin context b, group 3 got nothing, testing everyone got OD of heroin in context a, group 3 96% died, group 2 64% died, group 1 32% died cos of tolerances
  - - - wagner 1981: attention is high for novel stim and low for familiar stim, so the pigeons didnt readily learn the new association because the light was familiar
      - mackintosh 1975: attention is high to novel stim, high to novel relevant events and low to irrelevant stim - attention to the light dropped off because the light didn't signal anything important
      - pearce-hall - attention is high during learning (where responses are controlled) and low when learning is complete (when the responses become automatic)
      - kay and pearce 1984: group 1 light=nothing, group 2 light=food, group 3 light=food sometimes. the light was the same for all of the groups, but different groups had different attentions to the light so not wagner's. group 1 stopped paying attention to the light pretty quickly because it signalled nothing. group 2 had a gradual decrease of attention to the light because even though the info is bio relevant learning is complete. group 3 had continuous interest in the ligiht because learning was ongoing - so its peaarce hall that seems to make the sense
- - - - when the ant went to the droplet, they trapped it whilst they put a lens over the sun and reflect the light, then released the ant and the ant ran in the opposite direction - ants use the sun to dictate the direction for navigation
      - when they caught the ants at thee droplet site and put stilts on them, they walked twice as far they needed to go to get back to the next, and when they cut the ant's legs in half they walked half the distance - ants know how far to travel because their count their footsteps
    - - morris 1981: trained rats to swim around in a cloudy pool until they found a small platform underneath the water that they could stand on. on testing there were 3 groups: group 1 got released from the same place they had been since training, made a beeline for the platform. group 2 were released from another part of the pool, some confused swimming but they managed to find the platform. group 3 were released from the same place but the platform had been moved, they swam to the og place but then began swimming about like they had when first introd to the pool
      - mcgregor et al 2004: rats learnt to find the platform underneath the cloudy rectangle pool in the top right corner or bottom left, so there is a long side to the left and a short side to the right. in testing the rats were let loose in a kite shaped pool and the platform was positioned to have a long side to the left and a short side to the right - the rats could find it relatively quickly. form cog maps that re partial, taking note of key but some parts of the environment
- - - - terrace said these animals learnt not liike humans but through language tiral and error and to prove it he taught Nim Chimpsky 1979: up to 125 signs were learnt and 19000 utterances from nim by 18 months but the language was very simple and couldn't form new sentences of his own without the syntax being laid out to him and what position habits he had learnt were through trial and error