Stimulus representation in SOP: I. Theoretical rationalization and some implications

THE SOP MODEL [INFORMATION PROCESSING IN ANIMALS: Memory Mechanisms, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 1981, p. 5] is described in terms of its assumed stimulus representation, network characteristics, and rules for learning and performance. It is shown how several Pavlovian conditioning phenomena can be accounted on the basis of the model's presumed stimulus representation. Challenges to the SOP model prompted the adoption of a componential stimulus representation in: AESOP [Contemporary Learning Theories: Pavlovian Conditioning and the Status of Traditional Learning Theory, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 1989, p. 149], this was a dual representation of the unconditioned stimulus (US), and C-SOP [Contemporary Learning: Theory and Application, Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, 2001, p. 23], this was a multi-component representation of the conditioned stimulus (CS). The assumption of a componential CS representation, where large numbers of elements can be separately learned about, necessitated a modification of the learning rule. The modified, "constrained" rule was found useful to explain timing characteristics of Pavlovian conditioned responses, as well as data offered by Rescorla [J. Exp. Psychol. Anim. Behav. Process. 26 (2000) 428; Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 54B (2001) 53; J. Exp. Psychol. Anim. Behav. Process. 28 (2002) 163] showing that stimuli trained in compound do not share the same quantitative fate.