For example: If you first condition an animal to expect A to be followed by C, and then exposes them to A+B followed by C, they will not learn to associate B with C. This is a well replicated result, and the textbook explanation (which I believe) is that no learning occurs because C is already explained by A (i.e. there is no surprise).
Can you provide a citation? I don’t think this is true. My reading of this is that (if you’re training a dog) you can start with an unconditioned stimulus (sight of food) which causes salivating, and then you can add in the sound of a bell with the sight of food, and this also elicits salivating. And then you can remove the sight of food but still have the bell and the dog is likely to salivate. I don’t think you need to have a surprise to have learning in this context, you just need associations/patterns built up over time. Perhaps I’m misunderstanding you.
Can you provide a citation? I don’t think this is true. My reading of this is that (if you’re training a dog) you can start with an unconditioned stimulus (sight of food) which causes salivating, and then you can add in the sound of a bell with the sight of food, and this also elicits salivating. And then you can remove the sight of food but still have the bell and the dog is likely to salivate. I don’t think you need to have a surprise to have learning in this context, you just need associations/patterns built up over time. Perhaps I’m misunderstanding you.