ReviewPsychonomic bulletin & review2020
A-learning: A new formulation of associative learning theory.
Review in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Discerning Quantity: Numerosity in Two Embodied Machine Learning Agents.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Sequences and animal intelligence.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2025Review
- An associative account of collective learning.Royal Society open science · 2025Article
- Sequence representation as an early step in the evolution of language.PLoS computational biology · 2023Article
- The behavioral signature of stepwise learning strategy in male rats and its neural correlate in the basal forebrain.Nature communications · 2023Article
- Simultaneous learning of directional and non-directional stimulus relations in baboons (Papio papio).Learning & behavior · 2023Article
- A test of memory for stimulus sequences in great apes.PloS one · 2023Article
- Benefiting from trial spacing without the cost of prolonged training: Frequency, not duration, of trials with absent stimuli enhances perceived contingency.Journal of experimental psychology. General · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We present a new mathematical formulation of associative learning focused on non-human animals, which we call A-learning. Building on current animal learning theory and machine learning, A-learning is composed of two learning equations, one for stimulus-response values and one for stimulus values (conditioned reinforcement). A third equation implements decision-making by mapping stimulus-response values to response probabilities. We show that A-learning can reproduce the main features of: instrumental acquisition, including the effects of signaled and unsignaled non-contingent reinforcement; Pavlovian acquisition, including higher-order conditioning, omission training, autoshaping, and differences in form between conditioned and unconditioned responses; acquisition of avoidance responses; acquisition and extinction of instrumental chains and Pavlovian higher-order conditioning; Pavlovian-to-instrumental transfer; Pavlovian and instrumental outcome revaluation effects, including insight into why these effects vary greatly with training procedures and with the proximity of a response to the reinforcer. We discuss the differences between current theory and A-learning, such as its lack of stimulus-stimulus and response-stimulus associations, and compare A-learning with other temporal-difference models from machine learning, such as Q-learning, SARSA, and the actor-critic model. We conclude that A-learning may offer a more convenient view of associative learning than current mathematical models, and point out areas that need further development.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32632888What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.