Neurofunctionalism Revisited: Learning is More Than You Think It Is

Abstract

Responds to comments made by A. Blaisdell (see record [rid]2005-03184-003[/rid]), A. Machado (see record [rid]2005-03184-004[/rid]), S. Reilly and T. Schachtman (see record [rid]2005-03184-005[/rid]), G. Sokoloff and J. Steinmetz (see record [rid]2005-03184-006[/rid]), and J. Staddon (see record [rid]2005-03184-007[/rid]) on the original article by J. Grau and R. Joynes (see record [rid]2005-03184-002[/rid]) regarding neural-functionalist approaches to learning. The current authors note that studies of learning in simple systems (invertebrates and spinal cord) have revealed that organisms can encode stimulus-stimulus (Pavlovian) and response-outcome (instrumental) relations in multiple ways. They suggest that nonassociative mechanisms contribute to learning and that there is value in adopting an approach that details the neural-functional mechanisms involved. Reactions to this approach are discussed. The link between the methods of Pavlov and associative ('true') learning is deeply ingrained and, some believe, should be maintained. The authors suggest that there is value in dissociating the concepts and seek to clarify the implications of a neurofunctionalist approach to learning. It is argued that a neural-functionalist approach provides a better framework for integrating behavioral and neurobiological observations. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2017 APA, all rights reserved)