{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.012940330697340043, 'fraction_numerical': 0.008626887131560028, 'mean_word_length': 5.757281553398058, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Spatial contiguity facilitates Pavlovian second-order conditioning.

Two experiments investigated the effects of spatial contiguity upon the formation of second-order conditioning in pigeon subjects. Experiment 1 used an autoshaping procedure to pair two visual stimuli, S2 and S1, after S1 had previously been paired with food. The resulting second-order conditioning of S2 was superior when both stimuli appeared on the same response key within a trial, compared with their appearing on different keys. Experiment 2 found a similar importance of spatial contiguity between S2 and S1 in a conditioned suppression paradigm. In addition, consistently presenting S2 and S1 in the same spatial location produced superior conditioning compared with varying their spatial relation from trial to trial. The design of these experiments was such as to imply that spatial contiguity facilitates performance by improving the formation of association rather than by promoting stimulus generalization or pseudoconditioning. Moreover, the observation of a facilitative effect of spatial contiguity between S1 and S2 in two different paradigms that use qualitatively different unconditioned stimuli and evoke different responses implies some generality for these findings. Consequently, these results suggest that spatially contiguous stimuli are especially associable in Pavlovian conditioning paradigms.