Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T14:43:29.886Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Of mice and men: Revisiting the relation of nonhuman and human learning

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 April 2009

Holger Schultheis  and
Harald Lachnit
Holger Schultheis
Affiliation:
Transregional Collaborative Research Center Spatial Cognition, University of Bremen, 28359 Bremen, Germanyschulth@sfbtr8.uni-bremen.dehttp://www.cosy.informatik.uni-bremen.de/staff/schultheis/
Harald Lachnit
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Philipps-University Marburg, 35032 Marburg, Germanylachnit@staff.uni-marburg.dehttp://www.staff.uni-marburg.de/~lachnit/
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

To support their main claim, Mitchell et al. broach the issue of the relationship between the learning performance of human and nonhuman animals. We show that their argumentation is problematic both theoretically and empirically. In fact, results from learning studies with humans and honey-bees strongly suggest that human learning is not entirely propositional.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 32 , Issue 2 , April 2009 , pp. 224 - 225
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Deisig, N., Lachnit, H., Sandoz, J.-C., Lober, K. & Giurfa, M. (2003) A modified version of the unique cue theory accounts for olfactory compound processing in honeybees. Learning and Memory 10:199–208.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Deisig, N, Sandoz, J.-C., Giurfa, M. & Lachnit, H. (2007) The trial spacing effect in olfactory patterning discriminations in honeybees. Behavioural Brain Research 176(2):314–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kinder, A. & Lachnit, H. (2003) Similarity and discrimination in human Pavlovian conditioning. Psychophysiology 40:226–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Komischke, B., Giurfa, M., Lachnit, H. & Malun, D. (2002) Successive olfactory reversal learning in honeybees. Learning and Memory 9:122–29.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Komischke, B., Sandoz, J.-C., Lachnit, H. & Giurfa, M. (2003) Non-elemental processing in olfactory discrimination tasks needs bilateral input in honeybees. Behavioural Brain Research 145:135–43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lachnit, H. & Kimmel, H. D. (1993) Positive and negative patterning in human classical skin conductance response conditioning. Animal Learning and Behavior 21:314–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lachnit, H., Kinder, A. & Reinhard, G. (2002) Are rules applied in Pavlovian electrodermal conditioning with humans general or outcome specific? Psychophysiology 39:380–87.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lachnit, H., Ludwig, I. & Reinhard, G. (2007) Responding in configural discrimination problems depends on density of reinforcement in time. Experimental Psychology 54:281–88.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shanks, D. R. & Darby, R. J. (1998) Feature- and rule-based generalization in human associative learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes 24:405–15.Google Scholar