Role of Awareness in Associative Learning Within Contextual Cuing.

Role Of Awareness in associative Learning Within Contextual Cuing Saniya Singh University of Sydney

Role of Awareness in Associative Learning Within Contextual Cuing.

Abstract A contextual cuing task was carried out among 36 university students. These students were then asked to complete a recognition task to differentiate between contextually aware and unaware participants. The results indicated that participants performed better when the trial was contextually cued as opposed to when it was random. This evidence has supported preexisting literature and developing the single and dual process models of associative learning. This procedure eliminated some of the common bias introduced due to awareness, increasing accuracy. However, more research is required before any specific model can be specifically proffered over another to produce a concrete explanation of the role of awareness in associative learning.

Role of Awareness in Associative Learning Within Contextual Cuing.

Role of Awareness in Associative Learning Within Contextual Cuing.

The current scientific knowledge of Cognitive processes involving associative learning is a product of the extensive research that has been carried out in this area of psychology. Associative learning occurs as a product of pavlovian conditioning, pairing a neutral stimulus with a stimulus that elicits a reflexive behavior, producing a conditioned response such that the conditioned stimulus suffices to produce that reflex. (Port and Finamore, 2007). In order to explain this phenomenon of classical conditioning, researchers such as Kirsch (1999, as cited in Colagiuri, Livesey, and Harris, 2010) have put forth the expectancy theory, which dictates that the mere act of expecting an outcome is enough to elicit the outcome itself. Similarly, Wickramasekaras study explains that the previous associations of the conditioned stimulus and the unconditioned stimulus lead to the development of associative patterns. (Colagiuri et al., 2010) Although these theories have been established as separate entities, Lovibond et al. the phenomenon of classical conditioning in humans coexists with the expectancies that are prevalent in conscious thinking in regards to the conditioned stimulus. There are two main cognitive models that are widely discussed in published literature to explain associative learning - the single and the dual system. This single process system is propositional in nature, wherein participants are aware of the CSUS contingency and report US expectancy, which is believed to trigger the CR itself. The study by Eriksen and Doroz (1963) has provided empirical evidence from correlated perceptual cues that were provided to subjects to determine the role of

Role of Awareness in Associative Learning Within Contextual Cuing. awareness in guiding their responses. However, the study reported awareness only if participants were able to name the cue, providing an invalid measure of awareness. The role of contingency awareness and the US expectancy in eliciting a CR is the differentiating characteristic between the single and the dual-process learning models (Lovibond et al. 2002). The dual model or system is a more complex cognitive model whereby the exposure to the CS-US contingency results in two independent learning processes. The first leads to conscious awareness, and the second leading to the production of the conditioned response (Lovibond et al., 2002). The Eye Blink Classical Conditioning (EBCC) studies conducted by Papka, Ivry, Woodruff-Pak (1997) describe the CR as reflexive which does not require awareness of the CS-US contingency. This was strongly supported by empirical data that suggested that a relatively high percentage of participants that did not report awareness of a CR did produce the response. Furthermore, a certain percentage of aware participants reported the CR as reflexive, putting forth convincing evidence for the dual process learning system. However, psychological procedures involving measurement of awareness through questionnaires or interviews are subject to bias. In the study conducted by Papka et al., a relatively high percentage of participants (27%) reported a falsepositive CS-US contingency for unpaired EBCC control conditions. This may stem from previous knowledge, post-conditioning interviews or the bias for belief in confirmatory evidence as opposed to disconfirmatory evidence as shown in studies by Watson & Jason-Lairdt (1972, as cited in Papka et al., 1997). Hence ambiguities, as well as difficulties in measuring awareness has lead to the inability to accurately conclude that one model is more theoretically concrete than the other.

Role of Awareness in Associative Learning Within Contextual Cuing. The current study was built upon previous research to investigate the presence of conscious awareness in the occurrence of associative learning. From the examined research, it was anticipated that unaware participants would be able to perform faster on contextually cued trials compared to uncued trials. It was hypothesized that contextual cuing would be evident for both, aware and unaware participants. It is also hypothesized that the dual process system will be better able to explain results.

Results Table 1: Summary of Reaction times for aware and unaware participants. Aware participants Cued Mean (ms) SD P-value 750 66 <0.5 Uncued 798 62 Unaware Participants Cued 761 62 <0.5 Uncued 805 65

An initial analysis of the data concludes a faster overall reaction time for cued trials compared to uncued trials, as well as demonstrating a significant difference between the reactions timed for cued trials compared to those for uncued trials. For the purpose of this study, participants were divided into aware if they scored above chance and unaware if they score less than or equal to chance on the recognition test.

Role of Awareness in Associative Learning Within Contextual Cuing. As seen in Table 1, significant differences were found in the mean reaction time values for cued trials compared to uncued trials for both, aware and unaware participants. The high standard deviation values for all trials demonstrate high variability in the data. The difference between the cued vs. uncued group was significant (p<0.05) for both aware and unaware participants, such that reaction times were faster for cued trials as opposed to uncued trials. There were no significant differences between cuing effects on the aware group compared to the cuing effects on the unaware group (p>0.05).

Discussion: The current study investigated the presence of conscious awareness for associative learning. As anticipated, the contextually cued trials lead to faster reaction times than uncued trials. This finding provides support for the hypothesis that contextual cuing would be evident for both, aware and unaware participants. The results support the findings of Papka et al. EBCC study outlining associative learning to be independent of awareness. The overall results of this study clearly showed a significant (p<0.05) difference between cued and uncued trials, thereby, contextually cued trials produced faster reaction times than uncued trials. The aim of this investigation requires differentiation of participants that were aware of the target-distractor relationship, making the procedure valid. The results imply that while associative learning may occur in the presence of awareness, as in the case with the aware participants, it can also occur in the absence of awareness, as seen evident for the unaware participants. This supports the hypothesis that the fluid model of a dual learning process is better able to explain the results that are produced.

Role of Awareness in Associative Learning Within Contextual Cuing. The dual process model theory applied by Lovibond et al. can be furthered using the results from the present study. Since the results show a significantly faster reaction time for contextually cued trials for both, the aware and unaware participants, it allows for associative learning to be a product of awareness, but also allows for an individual pathway of learning without conscious awareness. Furthermore, the cuing affect in unaware participants supports the perception of the Conditioned response as reflexive behavior, postulated by Clark and Thompson (2009). The study also tied in with the studies of Colagiuri et al. wherein there was a larger cuing effect; hence faster reaction times for placebo groups and lesser cuing affect for nocebo groups compared with the control no information group. This study showed complex mechanisms whereby implicit learning was affected by expectancies too via manipulation. As discussed previously, the subjective measures of awareness used in previous studies have significantly reduced credibility of evidence and findings. The current study substituted the self-reporting bias with a recognition task used to differentiate aware participants. Another improvement in the method is the minimal amount of time between the contextual cuing task and the recognition task, eliminating interference and erosion of information. Although the awareness bias has been significantly reduced, the psychological ambiguities such as motivation and distraction remain, due to human constraints. As established earlier, faster reaction times for aware as well as unaware participants are best explained using the dual-processing model, however it is worth considering that the lower mean values for the aware participants could suggest an advantage due to awareness. There is no sufficient data to warrant this suggestion

Role of Awareness in Associative Learning Within Contextual Cuing. however; it may lead to a clearer model of awareness-based associative learning on undergoing further testing.

Role of Awareness in Associative Learning Within Contextual Cuing. References. Clark, R. E., Thompson, R. F., Procedural Learning: Classical Conditioning. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy2.library.usyd.edu.au/science/article/pii/ B9780080450469007804

Coffin, J.M., Woodruff-Pak, D. S. (1993). Delay Classical Conditioning in young and Older rabbits: initial acquisition and retention at 12 and 8 months. Behavioural Neuroscience, 107:63-71

Colagiuri, B., Livesey, E. J. & Harris, J. A. (2010). Can expectancies produce placebo effects for implicit learning? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18: 399-405

Eriksen, C. W., Doroz, L. (1963). Role of Awareness in Learning and Use of Correlated Extraneous Cues on Perceptual Tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66: 601-608.

Lovibond, P. F. & Shanks, D. R. (2002). The role of awareness in Pavlovian conditioning: Empirical evidence and theoretical implications. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 28: 3-26.

Papka, M., Ivry, R. B., Woodruff-Pak, D. S. (1997). Classical Conditioning and Awareness Revisited. Psychological Science, 8: 404-408.

Role of Awareness in Associative Learning Within Contextual Cuing. Port, R. L., Finamore, T. L. (2007). Conditioning. Retrieved from: http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy2.library.usyd.edu.au/science/article/p ii/B012370870200039

Clark, R. E., Thompson, R. F., Procedural Learning: Classical Conditioning. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy2.library.usyd.edu.au/science/article/pii/ B9780080450469007804