A flexible and generalizable model of online latent-state learning
Fig 4
Another demonstration of associability depending on beliefs in latent states.
Experimental results from A) Experiment 1A and B) Experiment 1B by Rescorla (2000) [39]. In both experiments, Rescorla concluded that associative strength increased more for Cue B relative to Cue A when presented together based on compound tests that showed greater responding in the compound with the Cue B than the compound with Cue A. This result suggested that associability can differ between cues even when presented together. Reprinted from “Associative Changes in Excitors and Inhibitors Differ When They Are Conditioned in Compound” by R.A. Rescorla, 2000, Journal of Experimental Psychology, 26, p. 430-431. Reprinted with permission from the American Psychological Association. C) Total change in associative strength was simulated during Stage 2 of Experiments 1A-B from Rescorla (2000) [39]. The RW model does not capture these effects since associability is constant whereas our model captures these effects because latent-state beliefs alters associability. Beliefs in the first latent state (black solid lines) and the second latent state (black dashed lines) are shown for models with latent states. Gray dashed lines demarcate experimental stages.