The first formalization of the comparator hypothesis [@miller_comparator_1988], the sometimes competing retrieval model [or SOCR\; @stout_sometimes-competing_2007] learns from local error and responds as a function of the relative associative strength between present and retrieved stimuli.
The SOCR model uses two different learning equations for the strengthening and weakening of associations. Whenever two stimuli are contiguous, strengthening occurs. In such a case, the strengthening of the association from stimulus $i$ to $j$ after trial $t$, $v_{i,j}^t$ is given by:
$$ \tag{Eq.1a} \Delta v_{i,j}^t = x^t_i \alpha_i \alpha_j (\lambda_j - v_{i,j}^{t-1}) $$
where $x^t_i$ denotes the presence (1) or absence (0) of stimulus $i$ on trial $t$. As such, the SOCR model only learns about stimuli that are presented. The parameters $\alpha_i$ and $\alpha_j$ are the saliencies of stimuli i and j, respectively, and $\lambda_j$ is the maximum association strength supported by $j$ (the asymptote).
Whenever stimulus $i$ is presented alone (i.e., stimulus $j$ is absent), the weakening of that association is given by:
$$ \tag{Eq.1b} \Delta v_{i,j}^t = x_i \alpha_i \times -\omega_j v_{i,j}^{t-1} $$
where $\omega_j$ determines the weakening rate for stimulus $j$.^note1
SOCR posits competition by stimuli that are presented and/or associatively retrieved. Dropping the trial notation for the sake of simplicity, the degree to which stimulus $i$ activates stimulus $j$, $act_{i,j}$, is given by:
$$ \tag{Eq.2} act_{i, j} = x_i v_{i,j} + x_j\rho_j\alpha_j $$
where $\rho_j$ (bound between 0 and +$\infty$) determines how much of salience of stimulus $j$ contributes to its unconditioned activation. These first-order activation values are the key quantities involved in the comparison processes.
Stimulus $i$ generates j-oriented responding at the time of retrieval as a function of its relative ability to activate stimulus $j$. This relative ability is expressed as a comparison process, given by:
$$ \tag{Eq.3} r^j_i = act_{i,j} - \Sigma_{k \neq i,j} ^K \gamma_k \times o_{i,k,j} \times r^k_i \times r^j_k $$ where $r^j_i$ is the relative activation of stimulus $j$ by stimulus $i$, $K$ is the set of all experimental stimuli not including $i$ or $j$, $\gamma_k$ is a parameter determining the degree to which stimulus $k$, a comparison stimulus, contributes to the comparison process (bound between 0 and 1), and $o_{i,k,j}$ is an operator switch that determines whether $i$ and $k$ associations with $j$ engage in facilitation or competition. Finally, $r^k_i$ is the relative activation of stimulus $k$ by stimulus $i$, representing the ability of stimulus $i$ to activate a comparison, and $r^j_k$ is the relative activation of stimulus $j$ by stimulus $k$, representing the ability of the comparison stimulus $k$ to activate stimulus $j$.^note2
Most notably, the last two quantities ($r^k_i$ and $r^j_k$)
are also determined by their corresponding instantiations
of Eq. 3. That is, they involve comparison processes themselves.
The number of potential comparison processes is technically
infinite (each comparison process can nest two extra
comparison processes itself), so the user must determine
the order of the model using an extra global parameter (order
).
For all n-th order models (with $n > 0$), the model will behave
like the extended comparator hypothesis [@denniston_extended_2001],
implementing $n$ comparison processes each time the relative
activations are calculated. With order = 0
, SM2007 will
behave like it was originally written and only consider
one comparison process. Indeed, n-th order models
are accomplished via recursion using the 0-th order model
as the stopping condition. When such a condition is reached,
the $r^k_i$ and $r^j_k$ terms in Eq. 3 become $act_{i,k}$
and $act_{k,j}$, respectively.
The operator switch in Eq. 3, $o_{i,k,j}$, changes as subjects learn to discriminate between the directly (via $i$) and indirectly activated (via $k$) representations of stimulus $j$. The change to this quantity depends on the value of $v_{i,j}$, as follows:
$$ \tag{Eq.4} \Delta o_{i,k,j} = \begin{cases} \tau_j\alpha_iv_{i,k}v_{k,j}(1-o_{i,k,j}) &\text{, if } v_{i,j} = 0\ 1-o_{i,k,j} & \text{, otherwise} \end{cases} $$
where negative values of $o$ indicate facilitation and positive values of $o$ indicate competition. The default value for all operator switches at the outset of training is set as -1 by default. The parameter $\tau_j$ specifies the learning rate for the operator switches related to stimulus $j$.
The calmr
implementation of the SOCR model specifies
different $\omega$, $\rho$, $\gamma$, and $\tau$ parameters
for each stimulus, but the authors of the model meant these
parameters as global parameters.
In the aim of generality, the SOCR implementation
in calmr
does not distinguish between relative activation
and response generation. The published formalizations of SOCR
made a special distinction (and adopted a different notation)
for calculating US responding [e.g., @witnauer_performance_2012],
but such responding is a direct result of relative activation of
the US representation by a CS.
Any scripts or data that you put into this service are public.
Add the following code to your website.
For more information on customizing the embed code, read Embedding Snippets.