A componential view of configural cues in generalization and discrimination in Pavlovian conditioning.

By S. Brandon, Edgar H Vogel, A. R. Wagner. 2000

144 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Distinct error-correcting and incidental learning of location relative to landmarks and boundaries (2008, result): “Other potential explanations are that poor predictors during initial learning will have an increased learning rate during compound learning (4), that the presence of a good predictor will aid the learning to a poor predictor by increasing reward frequency (‘‘feature enhancement’’) (34), that a cue’s”
Acquired equivalence and distinctiveness of cues: II. Neural manipulations and their implications. (2002, background): “The capacity for conditional learning can be explained by conventional unique-cue ( Brandon, Vogel, & Wagner, 2000; Rescorla, 1972; Saavedra, 1975; Wagner & Rescorla, 1972) and configural (e.g., Pearce, 1994) accounts in which individual representations of each stimulus compound (e.g., AX and BX) a”