Probability of shock in the presence and absence of CS in fear conditioning.
01 Aug 1968-Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology (J Comp Physiol Psychol)-Vol. 66, Iss: 1, pp 1-5
TL;DR: 2 experiments indicate that CS-US contingency is an important determinant of fear conditioning and that presentation of US in the absence of CS interferes with fear conditioning.
Abstract: 2 experiments indicate that CS-US contingency is an important determinant of fear conditioning and that presentation of US in the absence of CS interferes with fear conditioning. In Experiment 1, equal probability of a shock US in the presence and absence of a tone CS produced no CER suppression to CS; the same probability of US given only during CS produced substantial conditioning. In Experiment 2, which explored 4 different probabilities of US in the presence and absence of CS, amount of conditioning was higher the greater the probability of US during CS and was lower the greater the probability of US in the absence of CS; when the 2 probabilities were equal, no conditioning resulted. Two conceptions of Pavlovian conditioning have been distinguished by Rescorla (1967). The first, and more traditional, notion emphasizes the role of the number of pairings of CS and US in the formation of a CR. The second notion suggests that it is the contingency between CS and US which is important. The notion of contingency differs from that of pairing in that it includes not only what events are paired but also what events are not paired. As used here, contingency refers to the relative probability of occurrence of US in the presence of CS as contrasted with its probability in the absence of CS. The contingency notion suggests that, in fact, conditioning only occurs when these probabilities differ; when the probability of US is higher during CS than at other times, excitatory conditioning occurs; when the probability is lower, inhibitory conditioning results. Notice that the probability of a US can be the same in the absence and presence of CS and yet there can be a fair number of CS-US pairings. It is this that makes it possible to assess the relative importance of pairing and contingency in the development of a CR. Several experiments have pointed to the usefulness of the contingency notion. Rescorla (1966) reported a Pavlovian 1This research was supported by Grants MH13415-01 from the National Institute of Mental Health and GB-6493 from the National Science Foundation, as well as by funds from Yale University.
Citations
More filters
TL;DR: The present studies examined the impact of unsignaled morphine injections given 6 h prior to drug-context pairings on the development of associative tolerance and suggest disruption of Associative tolerance effects at short IDIs is not attributable to residual effects of morphine from the immediately preceding trial.
Abstract: When morphine administration is paired with a distinctive context, tolerance to morphine's analgesic effects comes readily under the associative control of the drug-paired context. These associative tolerance effects are eliminated when a relatively short (i.e., 6 h) interdose interval (IDI) is used for conditioning. Contemporary models of learned tolerance explain the absence of learning at short IDIs by positing that residual morphine effects from a recent drug exposure disrupt the formation of drug-context associations. The present studies examined the impact of Unsignaled morphine injections given 6 h prior to drug-context pairings on the development of associative tolerance. Analgesia was measured by the tail-flick method, and tolerance levels were assessed by dose-response curve methodology. Morphine preexposure had no detectable influence on the acquisition of associative tolerance when rats were tested immediately after conditioning, after a 30-day rest interval, or after a 30-day period of daily saline injections in their home-cage environment. These data suggest disruption of associative tolerance effects at short IDIs is not attributable to residual effects of morphine from the immediately preceding trial.
10 citations
TL;DR: Computational modeling and empirical findings support the idea that, at least in the case of eyeblink conditioning, there may be two different neural systems: the cerebellum which mediates US-based error correction and hippocampus which alters representations of CSs.
Abstract: Classical conditioning has been explained by two main types of theories that postulate different learning mechanisms. Rescorla and Wagner (1972) put forth a theory in which conditioning is based on the ability of the US to drive learning through error correction. Alternatively, Mackintosh (1973) put forth a theory in which the ability of the CS to be associated with the unconditioned stimulus is modulated. We have proposed a reconciliation of these two mechanisms as working in parallel within different neural systems: a cerebellar system for US modulation and a hippocampal system for CS modulation. We developed a computational model of cerebellar function in eyeblink conditioning based on the error correction mechanism of the Rescorla-Wagner rule in which learningrelated activity from the cerebellum inhibits the inferior olive, which is the US input pathway to the cerebellum (Gluck et al., 1994). We developed a computational model of the hippocampal region that forms altered representations of conditioned stimuli based on their behavioral outcomes (Gluck & Myers, 1993; Myers et al., 1995). Overall, computational modeling and empirical findings support the idea that, at least in the case of eyeblink conditioning, there may be two different neural systems: the cerebellum which mediates US-based error correction and hippocampus which alters representations of CSs.
10 citations
Cites background from "Probability of shock in the presenc..."
...Kamin's (1969) blocking study demonstrated that the ability of a CS to become associated with a US depends on whether or not the CS imparts reliable and nonredundant information about the expected occurrence of the US ( Rescorla, 1968; Wagner, 1969)....
[...]
...In a related study, Rescorla (1968) showed that CS-US associations are highly sensitive not just to the co-occurrence (contiguity) between the CS and the US but to their contingency, that is, whether or not the US is more likely to occur given a CS, relative to its likelihood given no-CS....
[...]
TL;DR: In this article, the major contribution of associative theories to predictive behavior and also theoretical advances in causal reasoning in animals as strong counter-evidence are reviewed.
Abstract: The ability to learn causal relationships between external events is important for animals, including human beings, in order to select appropriate predictive behavior. Historically, associative theories have claimed that the association between events is crucial, and automatic bottom-up processes play a role in achieving this goal, particularly in animals. Although associative theories could give a parsimonious explanation for predictive behavior in animals without the concept of causality, recently, several experiments have shown evidence that even rats can acquire and use causal knowledge to predict possible future events. In this article, I review the major contribution of associative theories to predictive behavior and also theoretical advances in causal reasoning in animals as strong counter-evidence.
10 citations
TL;DR: The present experiment extended the conditioned reinforcement preparation developed by Prével et al. to a backward second-order conditioning preparation and tested whether a second- order CS can serve as an effective conditioned reinforcer, even when the first-order CS with which it was paired is a backward CS that elicit no responding.
Abstract: Prevel and colleagues reported excitatory learning with a backward conditioned stimulus (CS) in a conditioned reinforcement preparation. Their results add to existing evidence of backward CSs sometimes being excitatory and were viewed as challenging the view that learning is driven by prediction error reduction, which assumes that only predictive (i.e., forward) relationships are learned. The results instead were consistent with the assumptions of both Miller's Temporal Coding Hypothesis and Wagner's Sometimes Opponent Processes (SOP) model. The present experiment extended the conditioned reinforcement preparation developed by Prevel et al. to a backward second-order conditioning preparation, with the aim of discriminating between these two accounts. We tested whether a second-order CS can serve as an effective conditioned reinforcer, even when the first-order CS with which it was paired is a backward CS that elicits no responding. Evidence of conditioned reinforcement was found, despite no conditioned response (CR) being elicited by the first-order backward CS. The evidence of second-order conditioning in the absence of excitatory conditioning to the first-order CS is interpreted as a challenge to SOP. In contrast, the present results are consistent with the Temporal Coding Hypothesis and constitute a conceptual replication in humans of previous reports of excitatory second-order conditioning in rodents with a backward CS. The proposal is made that learning is driven by "discrepancy" with prior experience as opposed to " prediction error."
10 citations
Cites background from "Probability of shock in the presenc..."
...…in a conditioned reinforcement preparation represents a new challenge to traditional associative models (e.g., Kamin, 1969; Mackintosh, 1975; Rescorla, 1968, 1972; Rescorla & Wagner, 1972), and more generally to the informational hypothesis principle that prediction error reduction is…...
[...]
TL;DR: In two experiments, food-deprived rats learned to associate one conditioned stimulus (CS+) with delivery of a food unconditioned stimulus (US), and another stimulus (IS) with an unexpected termination of CS-US trials, and both CS+ and IS enhanced consumption of the US food by sated rats.
10 citations
Cites methods from "Probability of shock in the presenc..."
...Although this training procedure has been widely used in the study of the role of CS-US contingency or correlation (Rescorla, 1968) and in the acquisition of motivational properties to CS + s in Pavlovian-instrumental transfer (Blundell, Hall, & Killcross, 2001; Crombag, Galarce, & Holland, 2008;…...
[...]
..., Weingarten, 1983; Zamble, 1973)? Although this training procedure has been widely used in the study of the role of CS-US contingency or correlation (Rescorla, 1968) and in the acquisition of motivational properties to CS + s in Pavlovian-instrumental transfer (Blundell, Hall, & Killcross, 2001; Crombag, Galarce, & Holland, 2008; Dickinson, Smith, & Mirenowicz, 2000; Galarce et al....
[...]
References
More filters
TL;DR: This "truly random" control procedure leads to a new conception of Pavlovian conditioning postulating that the contingency between CS and US, rather than the pairing of CS andUS, is the important event in conditioning.
Abstract: The traditional control procedures for Pavlovian conditioning are examined and each is found wanting. Some procedures introduce nonassociative factors not present in the experimental procedure while others transform the excitatory, experimental CS-US contingency into an inhibitory contingency. An alternative control procedure is suggested in which there is no contingency whatsoever between CS and US. This \"truly random\" control procedure leads to a new conception of Pavlovian conditioning postulating that the contingency between CS and US, rather than the pairing of CS and US, is the important event in conditioning. The fruitfulness of this new conception of Pavlovian conditioning is illustrated by 2 experimental results.
1,328 citations
301 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, three groups of dogs were trained with different kinds of Pavlovian fear conditioning for three different types of dogs: randomly and independently; for a second group, CSs predicted the occurrence of USs; and for a third group, S predicted the absence of the USs.
Abstract: Three groups of dogs were Sidman avoidance trained They then received different kinds of Pavlovian fear conditioning For one group CSs and USs occurred randomly and independently; for a second group, CSs predicted the occurrence of USs; for a third group, CSs predicted the absence of the USs The CSs were subsequently presented while S performed the avoidance response CSs which had predicted the occurrence or the absence of USs produced, respectively, increases and decreases in avoidance rate For the group with random CSs and USs in conditioning, the CS had no effect upon avoidance
160 citations
64 citations
TL;DR: Rats in an experimental group were given 30 trials of differential CER and then the CS+ and CS− were combined during CER extinction, resulting in less suppression for the experimental group than shown by a control group, interpreted as a demonstration of the active inhibitory properties of CS−.
Abstract: Rats in an experimental group were given 30 trials of differential CER and then the CS+ and CS− were combined during CER extinction. The combination resulted in less suppression for the experimental group than shown by a control group which had a CS+ and a formerly random stimulus combined during extinction. This was interpreted as a demonstration of the active inhibitory properties of CS−.
44 citations
"Probability of shock in the presenc..." refers background in this paper
...Although such an account is plausible for the present data, it fails to explain the active inhibition of fear found by Rescorla and LoLordo (1965), Rescorla (1966), and Hammond (1967)....
[...]