Journal of Experimental Psychology:

Animal Behavior Processes

1975, Vol. 104, No. 1, 22-29

Blocking and Overshadowing in Two Species of Fish

W. A. Tennant and M. E. Bitterman
University of Hawaii
In Experiment 1, a mixed blocking-overshadowing effect of color on an
auditory discrimination was demonstrated in goldfish. In Experiment 2
(with lines differing in color and angle), blocking of angle by color and
of color by angle was demonstrated in goldfish. In Experiment 3 (again
with lines differing in color and angle), overshadowing of angle by color
was demonstrated in carp, but the same animals (like goldfish in a pre-
vious study) failed to show greater intradimensional than extradimensional
transfer. These results are consistent with the hypothesis that blocking
and overshadowing are general phenomena of vertebrate learning. They
suggest also that the processes responsible for blocking and overshadowing
are different from those which produce the dimensional transfer effect.

In recent experiments with goldfish (Ten-
nant & Bitterman, 1973), we failed to find
better intradimensional than extradimen-
sional transfer, a phenomenon which has
been found in other veterbrates (pigeons,
rats, and monkeys) and which constitutes
some of the strongest evidence for the op-
eration of an attentional process in those
animals (Sutherland & Mackintosh, 1971).
In the present experiments with carp and
goldfish, we looked for blocking and over-
shadowing, two Pavlovian phenomena
which, like the dimensional transfer effect,
are well known in other vertebrates and
have been explained in attentional terms,
although alternative interpretations (which
do not predict the dimensional transfer ef-
fect) are available. The results bear on the
phyletic generality of blocking and over-
shadowing as well as on their functional
relation to the dimensional transfer effect.
EXPERIMENT 1: A HETEROMODAL
MIXED EFFECT IN GOLDFISH
A common feature of blocking and over-
shadowing is that learning about A, a com-
ponent of the compound stimulus AB, is
reduced by the presence of B. The over-
This research was supported by Grant MH-
23294 from the U.S. Public Health Service.
Requests for reprints should be sent to M. E.
Bitterman, Laboratory of Sensory Sciences, Uni-
versity of Hawaii, 1993 East-West Road, Hono-
lulu, Hawaii 96822.
22
shadowing effect, independent of prior train-
ing with B, is due, presumably, to its "sa-
lience," while the blocking effect is defined
as an outcome of such prior training. In
the present experiment, we used a design
which permitted both effects to operate, a
conservative strategy justified by the fact
that the only previous study of the problem
(an unpublished blocking experiment by
Ingle) had produced negative results. In-
gle's results led Gleitman and Rozin (1971),
who cited them, to the conclusion that "at-
tentional processes in fish are weak and
labile" (p. 259).
Method
Subjects. The subjects were 13 10-cm- goldfish
(Carassius auratus) supplied by a local dealer.
They were maintained on a 24-hr feeding sched-
ule in a temperature-controlled laboratory room.
All had extensive previous training in a series of
free-operant red-green discrimination reversals.
Apparatus. Each subject was trained in its in-
dividual living tank which was carried to an ex-
perimental chamber located in a larger sound-
attenuating enclosure. ' The training apparatus,
mounted on a chassis of black Plexiglas, covered
the top and front end of the tank. The manipu-
landum was a circular target, 4 cm in diameter,
presented at the front end of the tank. The tar-
get was fixed to a rod, the other end of which
was inserted into the needle holder of a phono-
graph cartridge, and any contact of the animal
with the target produced a voltage across the car-
tridge which was used to operate a response relay;
the circuit has been described elsewhere (Wood-
ard & Bitterman, 1974). At the center of the
target was a Plexiglas nipple through which liquid
 BLOCKING AND OVERSHADOWING IN FISH
reinforcement (Biorell blended with tragacanth
and water) could be delivered from a syringe by
a Peti-Pump (Harvard Apparatus Co.). The
target could be illuminated diffusely by 7.S-W
Christmas-tree lamps in a light box behind it,
while auditory stimuli could be presented through
a speaker mounted on one wall of the enclosure.
All events of the experiment were controlled by
programming equipment cabled to the chamber,
and responses were recorded with a printing
counter.
Procedure. The animals, which had previously
been trained in another apparatus, first were
adapted to the present apparatus in several ses-
sions of variable interval (VI) 1-min training
with a white target light which served as the
stimulus (S). The reinforcement was a drop of
liquid food delivered through the nipple. Each
session began with a warm-up period during which
the white target was presented and response to
it was reinforced on a VI 1-min schedule until
the animal had made at least 60 responses in 3
mia Then there were 10 3-min presentations of
the white stimulus, each preceded by a time-out
in darkness of at least IS sec, any response in the
interval being penalized by resetting of a S-sec
penalty timer which postponed the next presenta-
tion. The measure of performance was the num-
ber of responses made during each 3-min presenta-
tion exclusive of responses in a S-sec period fol-
lowing each reinforcement, the purpose of this ex-
clusion being to ensure that the measure of per-
formance would not be contaminated by residual
consummatory responses. (After discrimination
training was begun, exactly the same procedure
was employed during presentations of the negative
stimulus except that no food was actually de-
livered.)
In Stage 1 of the experiment, all animals were
retrained for five sessions on a red-green discrimi-
nation, red-positive for seven fish and green-posi-
tive for the remaining six. Each session began
with a warm-up on the white light, after which
there were 10 3-min presentations of each of two
stimuli in Gellermann orders, S+ on a VI 1-min
schedule and S— on extinction. On the basis of
their performance in Stage 1, the animals were
divided into two groups, a control group of six
animals and a "blocking" group of seven animals.
In Stage 2, both groups were trained for IS
sessions to discriminate between two tones, nomi-
nally 200 and 800 Hz (calibration with a hydro-
phone showed the 200-Hz tone to be 217 Hz at
35 db re .1 /iN/m*, and the 800-Hz tone to be
785 Hz at 10 db re .1 /uN/m". For half of the
animals in each group, 200 was positive, and for
the remaining half 800 was positive. For the con-
trol group, the target light was the same color on
positive and negative trials—the color which had
been positive in the color-discrimination training
of Stage 1. For the blocking group, the previously
positive color was presented along with the posi-
tive tone and the previously negative color with
23
TABLE 1
DESIGN OF EXPERIMENT 1 (MIXED EFFECT)
ILLUSTRATED IN TERMS OF TREATMENT
OF Two SAMPLE SUBJECTS
No. of
Stage sessions Subject 1 Subject 2
1 S R+G-
2 IS R,200 + G,800 - R,200 + R,800 -
3 1 W,200- W.800-
Note. Abbreviations: R = red, G = green, and W = white j
200 and 800 are auditory frequencies; + = reinforced, - = un-
relnforced. Subject 1 is In the blocking group and Subject 2 is
in the control group.
the negative tone. Again each session began with
a warm-up on the white light, after which there
were 10 presentations of each stimulus in Geller-
mann orders.
In Stage 3, all animals had a single extinction
session with the two tones and a white target
light. There were 10 unreinforced presentations
of each stimulus in Gellermann orders following
the standard (reinforced) warm-up procedure. In
Table 1, the design of the experiment is illustrated
in terms of the treatment of two sample subjects.
Results
The performance of the blocking group
was unaffected by the introduction of the
tones in Stage 2. As may be seen from
Figure 1, it discriminated the two tone-
color compounds from the outset (presuma-
bly on the basis of color) and continued to
perform at the same level throughout the
15 sessions. By contrast, the performance
of the control group fell almost to chance
in the first session, recovering gradually in
subsequent sessions (as the animals began
to discriminate the tones), and reaching the
level of the blocking group by Session 15.
In the extinction test with a white target
light accompanying each tone, the control
group continued to show good discrimina-
tion, while the performance of the blocking
group was disrupted, falling almost to the
chance level. Analysis of variance shows the
difference in extinction performance to be
highly significant, F (1, 10) = 32.90, p <
.001. We conclude that the colors corre-
lated with the tones in Stage 2 impaired
learning about the tones, although, as has
already been noted, it is impossible to say
whether the color difference would have had
such an effect independently of the pre-
24 W. A. TENNANT AND M. E. BITTERMAN
oro
fe '9
f -8
1 .7
^ .6
cr
u • BLOCKING
> CONTROL
I , , . . I ,
5 1O 15
SESSIONS
FIGURE 1. Performance of blocking and control
groups in acquisition and in the extinction test
(Experiment 1).
vious color-discrimination training—that is,
whether we are dealing here with blocking
alone, overshadowing alone, or both com-
bined.
EXPERIMENT 2: BLOCKING IN GOLDFISH
Our purpose in this experiment was to
look for pure evidence of blocking (uncon-
taminated by the possibility of overshadow-
ing). Two visual dimensions were used—
color and angular orientation of a line. The
blocking of angle by color was studied first,
and then the blocking of color by angle.
Method
Subjects. The subjects were 12 experimentally
naive 10-cm goldfish supplied by a local dealer.
They were maintained on a 24-hr feeding schedule
in a temperature-controlled laboratory room.
Apparatus. The 12 individual living tanks, their
two long sides and back ends painted flat black,
were arranged on a circular table which could be
rotated to bring each tank in turn into the train-
ing position. The training apparatus, mounted on
a chassis of black Plexiglas, covered the top and
front end of the tank providing a darkened ex-
perimental enclosure. The manipulandum was a
circular target, 4 cm in diameter, with a feeding
nipple at its center. It was situated at the front
end of the tank behind a circular opening in a
black Plexiglas surround designed to require the
fish to approach the target on a perpendicular
path. The target could be illuminated from be-
hind, either diffusely by a white lamp or by an
optical system designed to project a line of light
(3.2 cm long and 1.5 mm wide, the feeding nipple
at its center) on a dark ground. The line could
be varied in color and in angle. The colors used
in this experiment were green (Wratten filter
No. 58), blue (No. 47), orange (No. 21), purple
(No. 34A), and white (no filter). The light
source was a 200-W Sylvania projector lamp
(Model CGW) operated at 65 V. The angles
were 0° (vertical), 45° (diagonal), and 90° (hori-
zontal).
Procedure. The method of discriminative train-
ing was in general the same as in Experiment 1.
Each session began with a warm-up on the white
light, and then there were 10 3-min stimulus pres-
entations, 5 of each of the two stimuli used, in
Gellermanrj orders. The S+ was reinforced on
a VI 1-min schedule and the S— was on extinc-
tion. The procedure was divided into eight stages
distinguished by the letters A-H for easy reference
to Figure 2. In Table 2, the procedure is illus-
trated in terms of the treatment of two sample
subjects.
Stage A. In Sessions 1-12, all animals were
trained to discriminate green and blue 45° lines.
For half of the animals, blue was positive, and for
the rest green was positive. The animals then
were divided into two groups (blocking and con-
trol) matched for performance in the green-blue
problem.
Stage B. In Sessions 13-18, all animals were
trained in a confounded color and angle problem
with green and blue horizontal and vertical lines
—either green-0" vs. blue-90° or blue-0° vs. green-
90°. For the blocking group (e.g., Subject 1 of
Table 2), the previously positive color remained
positive (vertical for half and horizontal for half),
while for the control group (e.g., Subject 2 of
Table 2) the previously positive color now was
negative (again, vertical for half and horizontal
TABLE 2
DESIGN OF EXPERIMENT 2 (BLOCKING) ILLUS-
TRATED IN TERMS OF TREATMENT OF
Two SAMPLE SUBJECTS
No. of
Stage sessions Subject 1 Subject 2
A 12 B,D + G,D-
B 6 B,V+G,H- G,V+B,H-
1
C W,V- W,H-
D 1 B,V+G,H- G,V+B,H-
E 10 w,v+ W,H-
F 8 0,H+P,V- O,V+P,H-
G 1 0,D- P,D-
H 1 O,D + P,D-
Note. Abbreviations: B = blue, G = green, O = orange,
P = purple, W = white, D = diagonal, H = horizontal,
V = vertical, + = reinforced, — = unreinforced. In the
first portion of the experiment (blocking of angle by color).
Subject 1 is in the blocking group and Subject 2 is in the control
group. In the second portion of the experiment (blocking of
color by angle), the roles of the two subjects are reversed.
 BLOCKING AND OVERSHADOWING IN FISH
for half). Thus, the blocking group could con-
tinue to respond in terms of the previously estab-
lished color discrimination, while the control group
could not. For both groups, of course, the two
angles were differentially reinforced.
Stage C. In Session 19, all animals had an
extinction test with white horizontal and vertical
lines. (As usual, the stimuli were presented in
Gellermann orders, but response to neither was
reinforced.)
Stage D. In Session 20, all animals were re-
trained on the confounded color-angle problem as
in Stage B.
Stage E. In Sessions 21-30, all animals were
trained to discriminate the white horizontals and
verticals used in Stage C. For animals whose
previously positive angle was 0°, white-0° was
positive, while for animals whose previously posi-
tive angle was 90°, white-90° was positive.
Stage F. In Sessions 31-38, all animals were
trained on a confounded color-angle problem with
orange and purple horizontals and verticals—
either orange-0° vs. purple-90" or purple-00 vs.
orange-90°. The former control group (e.g., Sub-
ject 2) now became the blocking group and for
these animals the previously positive angle re-
mained positive (orange for half and purple for
half). For the former blocking group (e.g., Sub-
ject 1), now the control group, the previously
negative angle was positive (orange for half and
purple for half). That is, the blocking group
could continue to respond in terms of the pre-
viously acquired angle discrimination, while the
control group could not.
Stage G. In Session 39, all animals had an ex-
tinction test with orange and purple 45° lines
(Gellermann orders, neither reinforced).
Stage H. In Session 40, both groups were
trained to discriminate between the orange and
purple 45° lines. The positive color of Stage F
was positive again in Stage H.
Results
Performance in each session of each stage
of the experiment is plotted in Figure 2 in
1.0
o
0 .7
'5
.3
10 15
SESSIONS
FIGURE 2. Performance of blocking and control groups in each of the
eight (A-H) stages of Experiment 2, (For description of conditions,
see text.)
25
terms of mean discrimination ratios for the
blocking and control animals. The results
for Stage A (Sessions 1-12) show that the
two groups were closely matched for per-
formance in the original color discrimina-
tion. The results for Stage B (Sessions 13-
18) suggest that the blocking group was
unaffected by the introduction of the con-
founded angle cues; the performance of the
control group was substantially affected by
the reversal of the color cues, although re-
covery was complete by Session 17-18.
The results for the extinction test of Stage
C (Session 19) provide clear evidence of
blocking—the performance of the blocking
group fell to chance, while that of the con-
trol group showed substantial discrimina-
tion of angle alone. The difference is sta-
tistically reliable, F (1, 10) = 7.14, p < .05.
It is interesting to note that in Stage D, when
both groups were returned for a single ses-
sion to the confounded problem of Stage B,
the performance of the control group gave
some indication of disturbance by the prior
extinction test with angle, while that of the
blocking group (apparently entirely under
the control of color) did not, F (1, 10) =
16.13, p < .01. Further evidence of block-
ing is to be found in the superior perform-
ance of the control group in Stage E when
both groups were trained with the white an-
gles, F (1, 10) =6.59, p< .05.
As may be seen from Figure 2, the per-
formance of both groups in the angle dis-
crimination of Stage E soon became very
good. When, in Stage F, a confounded
color difference was introduced, the per-
2O 25 30 35 40
26 W. A. TENNANT AND M. E. BITTERMAN
formance of the blocking group (for which
the previously positive angle remained posi-
tive) was unaffected, while the performance
of the control group (for which the pre-
viously positive angle now became negative)
was disrupted for a time, although it
equalled that of the blocking group by the
end of Stage F. Evidence of blocking ap-
peared again in the extinction test of Stage
G (when the stimuli differed only in color).
While the performance of the two groups
was equally good at the end of training, per-
formance based on color alone in the ex-
tinction test was significantly better in the
control group than in the blocking group
F (1, 10) =67.90, p < .01. Retraining
was rapid, however, and the performance
of the two groups did not differ significantly
in Stage H (F < 1).
We conclude that the blocking of angle
by color and of color by angle has been dem-
onstrated in goldfish.
EXPERIMENT 3: OVERSHADOWING AND
DIMENSIONAL TRANSFER IN CARP
In this experiment, we set out to deter-
mine if a more salient color difference would
overshadow a less salient angle difference,
salience being defined in terms of difficulty
of discrimination as established in indepen-
dent tests. Although we had begun our
work on attention in fishes with goldfish,
we found it necessary here to use carp be-
cause goldfish were for a considerable time
in very short supply. Interest in the rela-
tion between overshadowing and the di-
TABLE 3
DESIGN OF PART 1 OF EXPERIMENT 3 (OVER-
SHADOWING) ILLUSTRATED IN TERMS OF
TREATMENT OF Two SAMPLE SUBJECTS
No. of
Stage sessions Subject 1 Subject 2
1 5 Y,135° +
R,120°+G,150°~
2 20
R,120°+ R,150°-
3 1 Y,120°- Y,150°-
4 1 Y,120° + Y,150°-
Note, Abbreviations: Y = yellow, R = red, and G = green;
120, 133, and ISO are angular orientations; + = reinforced,
— = unreinforced. Subject 1 is in the overshadowing group
and Subject 2 is in the control-group.
mensional transfer effect, which had failed
to appear in our previous work with gold-
fish, led us to look also for the dimensional
transfer effect in carp.
Method
Subjects. The subjects were 12 experimentally
naive 10-cm carp (Cyprinus carpio) supplied by
a local dealer. They were maintained on a 24-hr
feeding schedule in a temperature-controlled lab-
oratory room.
Apparatus. The apparatus was the same as in
Experiment 2. The colors used in this experi-
ment were red (Wratten filter No. 25), yellow
(three thicknesses of No. 8), green (No. 58),
and blue (No. 47). The angles were 0" (ver-
tical), 45°, 90°, 120°, 135°, and 150°, all mea-
sured clockwise.
Procedure. The discriminative training method
was the same in general as in the previous ex-
periments. Each session began with a warm-up
on the white light and was followed by 3-min
presentations (in modified Gellermann orders) of
the various stimuli to be discriminated, S+ on
VI 1-min reinforcement and S—• on extinction.
Part 1. The first part of the experiment was
concerned with overshadowing. In Table 3, the
procedure is illustrated in terms of the treatment
of two sample subjects.
In Stage 1 of Part 1, all animals were trained
for five sessions with a yellow 135° line on VI
1-min reinforcement. There were 12 presenta-
tions of this stimulus in each session. The pur-
pose of the training was to familiarize the ani-
mals with the yellow color to be used in the over-
shadowing tests (Stages 3 and 4).
In Stage 2 of Part 1, six animals (overshadow-
ing group) were trained for: 20 sessions on a
confounded color and angle discrimination. For
three of the fish red-120° was positive and green-
ISO0 was negative, while for the other three,
green-ISO" was positive and red-120° was nega-
tive. The remaining six animals (control group)
were trained for 20 sessions on a pure angle
discrimination; red-120" was positive and red-ISO0
was negative for three fish, while green-ISO0 was
positive and green-120° was negative for the other
three. In each session, there were 6 3-min pres-
entations of S+ and 6 3-min presentations of S—.
In Stage 3 of Part 1, both groups had a single
extinction session in which yellow-120" and yel-
low-ISO" were presented in a balanced order (six
3-min presentations of each).
In Stage 4 of Part 1, both groups were trained
for a single session on a pure yellow-angle dis-
crimination with the angle which was positive in
Stage 2 positive again in Stage 4. For animals
whose previously positive stimulus was red-1200,
yellow-1200 was positive and yellow-ISO0 was
negative. For animals whose previously positive
stimulus was green-150", yellow-150" was posi-
tive and yellow-1200 was negative.
 BLOCKING AND OVERSHADOWING IN FISH 27

Part 2. In the second part of the experiment,

we looked for the dimensional transfer effect. All oro
animals were pretrained for three sessions with H .9
<
two sets of four stimuli—red and yellow hori-
? -8
zontals and verticals, and blue and green diag-
onals. The stimuli were presented equally often
in balanced orders and response to each was re-
.7
inforced on a VI 1-min schedule. Then differ-
ential reinforcement was begun. In Table 4, the 1 .5
procedure is illustrated in terms of the treatment 01
of four sample subjects.
In Stage 1, all animals were trained for IS
ti .4
° .3
> OVERSHADOWING
' CONTROL
sessions with the red and yellow horizontals and
verticals. For six of the animals, color was rele- 1O 15 2O
vant and angle irrelevant; red was positive for SESSIONS
three and yellow for three. For the remaining
animals, angle was relevant and color irrelevant; FIGURE 3. Performance of overshadowing and
horizontal was positive for three and vertical for control groups in acquisition and in the extinction
three. There were four 3-min presentations of test (Experiment 3, Part 1).
each stimulus in each session.
In Stage 2, the animals were trained for seven Results
sessions with the green and blue diagonals. For
six fish (one previously trained red-positive, two Performance in the 20 training sessions
yellow-positive, two horizontal-positive, and one of Stage 2 and in the extinction session of
vertical-positive), color was relevant (blue-positive Stage 3 in Part 1 is plotted in Figure 3.
for three, green-positive for three) and orientation The superior performance of the over-
irrelevant. For the remaining fish, orientation
was relevant (13S°-positive for three, 4S°-positive shadowing group shows that the confounded
for three) and color irrelevant. Thus, for half color and angle discrimination was easier
of the animals the shift was intradimensional, than the pure angle discrimination. In ex-
while for half it was extradimensional. tinction, however, the control group con-
In Stage 3, the animals were retested with the
red and yellow stimuli in a single session, and in tinued to give evidence of discrimination
Stage 4, all eight of the stimuli were used, with while the performance of the overshadowing
two presentations of each stimulus in a single ses- group fell to chance, suggesting that color
sion. In the latter two stages, the stimuli were had interfered with learning about angle.
differentially reinforced as in the preceding stages. The performance of the control group was
TABLE 4 significantly better than that of the over-
DESIGN OF PART 2 OF EXPERIMENT 3 (DIMEN- shadowing group both in the Stage 3 ex-
SIONAL TRANSFER) ILLUSTRATED IN TERMS OF
TREATMENT OF FOUR SAMPLE SUBJECTS tinction test, 'F ( I , 10) = 7.74, p < .02, and
in the Stage 4 retraining test, F (1, 10) =
Subjects 5.16, p < .05. We conclude that the over-
Stage No. of Stimuli
sessions shadowing of angle by color has been dem-
1 2 3 4
onstrated.
1 IS R,V + + + + The results for dimensional transfer, plot-
R,H + + ' ted in Figure 4, are quite like those pre-
Y,V — + +
Y,H — — viously reported for goldfish. The curves
—
for Stage 1 (Sessions 1-15) show that the
2 7 G,Da + + + +
G,Db + +
two groups were properly matched for per-
—
B,Da —
— + —
+ formance with the red-yellow horizontal-
B,Db ' — —
vertical set of stimuli. (It should be noted
that in this and in all subsequent stages of
3 1 Same as in Stage 1
4 1 Same as in Stages 1 and 2 combined the experiment, as in the previously pub-
lished experiment on dimensional transfer
Note. Abbreviations: R = red, V = yellow, G = green, in goldfish, the color and angle problems
B = blue, V = vertical, H = horizontal, Da and Db = diago-
nals, -\- = reinforced, — = unreinforced. Subjects 1 (color were of almost exactly equal difficulty.)
relevant in both sets of stimuli) and 4 (angle relevant in both
setsi of
oof stmu
stimuli) aare
r e intradimensional
ntramensona aanimals,
nmas, w e Subjects
while uects2 Subsequent performance with the green-
(angle to color) and 3 (color to angle) are extradimensional
animals. blue diagonal set of stimuli in Stage 2 (Ses-
28 W. A. TENNANT AND M. E. BITTERMAN

sions 16-22) also was the same in the two
groups—that is, performance was the same
whether the relevant dimension had been
relevant or irrelevant in the prior stage.
Furthermore, performance with the red-
yellow horizontal-vertical set in Stage 3
(Session 23) was not impaired by extra-
dimensional training in Stage 2; nor in
Stage 4 (Session 24) was concurrent per-
formance with the two sets of stimuli any
better when the same dimension was rele-
vant in both sets than when the relevant
dimension of one set was the irrelevant di-
mension of the other. Like goldfish, then,
carp fail to show dimensional transfer un-
der these conditions.
DISCUSSION
The work reported here is significant pri-
marily because it extends the range of ver-
tebrates in which blocking and overshadow-
ing have been demonstrated, lending weight
to the common assumption that they are
general phenomena of vertebrate learning
(Bitterman & Woodard, 1975). The re-
sults bear also on the theory of blocking
and overshadowing.
The first question to be asked about the
two phenomena, of course, is whether they
can be dealt with in terms of conventional
continuity theory—that is, on the assump-
tion that components of a compound stimu-
lus independently acquire excitatory and
inhibitory properties by association with
reinforcement and nonreinforcement—or
whether some principle of stimulus domi-
nance or stimulus selection is required.
Even where (as here) the experimental de-
sign makes it possible to rule out explana-
tions in terms of stimulus generalization or
afferent neural interaction, the possibility
must be considered that different experience
with the critical components in the training
stage is responsible for the outcome. Con-
sider, for example, the present experiments:
Although in each case the two groups had
equal exposure to the blocked or over-
shadowed components, and the same number
of reinforcements for response to S+ (with
VI 1-min training, a minimal rate of re-
sponding to S+ ensures the delivery of all
scheduled reinforcements), the blocking or
overshadowing group made more unrein-
forced responses to S+ and fewer unrein-
forced responses to S— than did the control
group. There simply is no way in the train-
ing stage of a blocking or overshadowing
experiment to equate the experience of the
two groups both with respect to dura-
tion of exposure to the critical components
and with respect to frequency of respond-
ing in the presence of those components.

1.O
0 9
? .8
- R-Y

Q .7
1,
I 5 INTRADIMENSIONAL
or '
EXTRADIMENSIONAL

.3L
1 1O 15 20
SESSIONS
FIGURE 4. Performance of the two groups in the initial training with
the red-yellow (R-Y) set, in the subsequent training with the blue-green
(B-G) set, and in subsequent tests with the red-yellow set and with both
sets combined (Experiment 3, Part 2).
 BLOCKING AND OVERSHADOWING IN FISH 29

The suggestion of Wagner (1969) that clas- might be some objection, furthermore, to
sical conditioning is more appropriate in our use of experienced animals, although
such experiments than instrumental condi- there is nothing in attention theory which
tioning is acceptable only on the assumption suggests that the dimensional transfer ef-
that differences in responding are of less fect occurs only in naive animals or is mani-
importance in classical conditioning. It re- fested less readily by experienced animals.
mains, however, to be determined whether It should be noted that the subjects of Ex-
the entire pattern of results obtained in the periment 1 were not naive, nor were the
blocking and overshadowing experiments subjects that showed blocking of color by
which have been reported thus far can in angle in Experiment 2 (having previously
fact be derived rigorously from continuity been used to demonstrate blocking of angle
theory. by color). Given our negative results, it
Two other interpretations of blocking and seems reasonable for the moment to assume
overshadowing are available, one which may that the dimensional transfer effect is not
be phrased in attentional terms (Sutherland to be found in goldfish or carp and there-
& Mackintosh, 1971.) and the other in in- fore to entertain the hypothesis that the
formational . terms (Rescorla & Wagner, processes responsible for dimensional trans-
1972; Wagner & Rescorla, 1972). The fer are different from those which produce
change in the associative strength of some blocking and overshadowing.
component of a compound stimulus pro- REFERENCES
duced by reinforcement or nonreinforcement
is related, in the one view, to the amount Bitterman, M. E., & Woodard, W. T. Vertebrate
learning; Common processes. In R. B. Master-
of attention paid that component and, in the ton, M. E. Bitterman, C. B. G. Campbell, &
other, to the predictability of reinforcement N. Hotten (Eds.), The evolution of brain and
or nonreinforcement from the compound. behavior in vertebrates. Potomac, Md.: Erl-
In the evaluation of these alternatives, the baum, 1975.
Gleitman, H., & Rozin, P. Learning and mem-
negative results reported here on dimen- ory. In W. S. Hoar & D. J. Randall (Eds.),
sional transfer in carp, along with our pre- Fish physiology (Vol. 6) : Environmental rela-
vious results for goldfish (Tennant & Bit- tions and behavior. New York: Academic Press,
terman, 1973), may be of some assistance. 1971.
Rescorla, R. A., & Wagner, A. R. A theory of
Since attention theory predicts better intra- Pavlovian conditioning: Variations in the ef-
dimensional than extradimensional transfer fectiveness of reinforcement and nonreinforce-
as well as blocking and overshadowing, the ment. In A. H. Black & W. F. Prokasy (Eds.),
informational theory, which does not predict Classical conditioning II. New York: Appleton-
Century-Crofts, 1972.
the dimensional transfer effect, might appear Sutherland, N. S., & Mackintosh, N. J. Mecha-
superfluous if the dimensional transfer ef- nisms of discrimination learning in animals,
fect were found in all animals that show New York: Academic Press, 1971.
blocking and overshadowing. With our Tennant, W. A., & Bitterman, M. E. Some com-
failure to find dimensional transfer in carp parisons of intra- and extradimensional transfer
in discriminative learning of goldfish. Journal
and goldfish, however, the demonstration of of Comparative and Physiological Psychology,
blocking and overshadowing in the same ani- 1973, 83, 134-139.
mals suggests that the three phenomena Wagner, A. R. Incidental stimuli and discrimina-
may not have a common explanation and tion learning. In R. M. Gilbert & N. S. Suther-
land (Eds.), Animal discrimination learning.
emphasizes the usefulness of the Wagner- New York: Academic Press, 1969.
Rescorla model. Wagner, A. R., & Rescorla, R. A. Inhibition in
How seriously this argument is taken de- Pavlovian conditioning: Application of a theory.
pends, of course, on how much weight is In R. A. Boakes & M. S. Halliday (Eds.), In-
given to the negative results of our dimen- hibition and learning. New York: Academic
Press, 1972.
sional transfer experiments. The possibil- Woodard, W. T., & Bitterman, M. E. Improved
ity certainly must be considered that dimen- techniques for the measurement of consumma-
sional transfer is a more subtle effect than tory behavior in fishes. Behavior Research
blocking or overshadowing, one which our Methods and Instrumentation, 1974, 6, 321-324.
technique is inadequate to detect. There (Received March 1, 1974)