nucleation

QUESTION-328: Does an implemented model-based or latent-cause model of human avoidance, compared on the same data with the model-free two-factor implementations, reproduce the phenomena Mancinelli and Bach rate A or B, including residual avoidance after signalled outcome omission, and does a model without an inferential component fail them?

1 min read

Properties4
StatusOpen
Tagslearning-and-conditioning, cognition
Linewill-organization
Cited as “bears on” byTHEORY-900 — A systematic review of 116 studies of avoidance learning in healthy humans finds the evidence contradicting two-factor and other associative theories and favouring expectancy and inference-based accounts, but also finding residual avoidance after the outcome is visibly removed, which a purely inferential account does not predict

Graph View

Why it is a question

THEORY-900 holds Mancinelli and Bach’s scoring of five theories against the phenomena they rate. No model was fitted, and by their account no computational counterpart of expectancy theory exists for avoidance.

What would answer it

THEORY-900’s former promote_when, unchanged:

The version of record read and found to keep the verdict; and an implemented model-based or latent-cause model of avoidance that reproduces the phenomena the review rates A or B, including residual avoidance after signalled outcome omission, compared on the same data against the model-free two-factor implementations (Moutoussis et al. 2008; Maia 2010) and winning. It is refuted if a model-free or associative model, without an inferential component, reproduces CS termination being unnecessary, latent and US-based transfer and spontaneous avoidance after Pavlovian learning. A further narrative scoring of theories against phenomena cannot settle it.

Backlinks