Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Assessing power PC.

Lorraine G Allan1

  • 1Department of Psychology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. allan@mcmaster.ca

Learning & Behavior
|July 29, 2003
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

This study challenges Cheng's power PC causal model, finding that existing and new experimental data do not support its predictions over traditional associative models in learning.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Age differences in contingency judgement linked to perceptual segregation.

Quarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006)·2012
Same author

The criterion-calibration model of cue interaction in contingency judgments.

Learning & behavior·2011
Same author

Neural temporal dynamics of contingency judgement.

Quarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006)·2010
Same author

Cue-interaction effects in contingency judgments using the streamed-trial procedure.

Canadian journal of experimental psychology = Revue canadienne de psychologie experimentale·2009
Same author

The psychophysics of contingency assessment.

Journal of experimental psychology. General·2008
Same author

Contingency judgements on the fly.

Quarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006)·2007
Same journal

Correction: Quantifying nonmnemonic strategies in two-alternative forced-choice delayed matching and nonmatching-to-position tasks in mice (Mus musculus) using automated video tracking technologies.

Learning & behavior·2026
Same journal

Unconditional stimulus deflation is stimulus specific.

Learning & behavior·2026
Same journal

What is possible and what is worth: Higher levers afford more work and enhance the value of leisure.

Learning & behavior·2026
Same journal

Behavioral impact of adolescent social isolation stress: A multidimensional assessment in male NMRI mice.

Learning & behavior·2026
Same journal

Behavioral characteristics of rapid visual categorization learning in domestic chicks.

Learning & behavior·2026
Same journal

Operant conditioning through positive reinforcement in the ghost crab (Ocypode quadrata).

Learning & behavior·2026
See all related articles

Area of Science:

  • Cognitive Psychology
  • Learning Theory
  • Computational Neuroscience

Background:

  • Cheng (1997) proposed the power PC causal model, positing it could explain data problematic for associative models like the Rescorla-Wagner model (1972).
  • The power PC model aimed to address limitations in existing associative learning theories.
  • This research critically evaluates the empirical support for the power PC model.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To re-evaluate the literature data used by Cheng (1997) to support the power PC model.
  • To assess experimental findings published since 1997 that specifically tested the power PC model's predictions.
  • To argue that Cheng's critique of associative models was overly restrictive.

Main Methods:

  • Systematic review and re-analysis of existing empirical data cited by Cheng (1997).

Related Experiment Videos

  • Analysis of post-1997 experimental studies designed to test the power PC model.
  • Comparative evaluation of the power PC model against established associative models.

    • Main Results:

    • The literature data Cheng (1997) relied upon does not, upon closer inspection, support the power PC model.
    • Subsequent experiments specifically designed to test power PC have also failed to provide supporting evidence.
    • The empirical evidence does not favor the power PC model over traditional associative learning models.

    Conclusions:

    • The power PC causal model lacks sufficient empirical support from both existing and newly generated data.
    • Cheng's (1997) assessment of associative models may have been based on an incomplete or narrow definition.
    • Associative models, such as the Rescorla-Wagner model, remain viable explanations for learning phenomena.