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
01 Jan 1986
TL;DR: A primary function of associative learning and memory in the nudibranch mollusk Hermissenda crassicornis is to allow this animal to detect, anticipate, and to respond appropriately to causal relations within its environment.
Abstract: A primary function of associative learning and memory in the nudibranch mollusk Hermissenda crassicornis is to allow this animal to detect, anticipate, and to respond appropriately to causal relations within its environment. The cellular mechanisms by which this is accomplished reflect the integrated effects of the synaptic organization of the visual and vestibular systems, in conjunction with the intrinsic electrophysiological characteristics of the component neurons.
10 citations
27 Jun 2019
TL;DR: The primary source for both first (L1) and second language (L2) learning is the learner’s participative, contextualized experience of language.
Abstract: • The primary source for both first (L1) and second language (L2) learning is the learner’s participative, contextualized experience of language. Language learning is largely usage-based. Humans use language in order to communicate and make meaning. • The cognitive mechanisms that learners employ in language learning are not exclusive to language learning, but are general cognitive mechanisms associated with learning of any kind.
10 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, a comparison of the behavioral events in the course of learning under classical and operant avoidance was conducted as a formal comparison of behavioral events under two different theoretical frameworks.
Abstract: How animals learn responses which prevent the occurrence of noxious events has been the subject of a major debate in experimental psychology for decades. Until recently, investigations could be clearly identified with one of the two theoreticalempirical traditions known as classical and operant avoidance. Differences in procedures, hypotheses, and kinds of data collected within the two traditions made it doubtful that the underlying mechanisms of learning could be compared (Hoffman, 1966). In practice, however, several aspects of the comparison have been made successfully (Bolles, Stokes, & Younger, 1966; D'Amato, Fazzaro, & Etkin, 1968; Keehn, 1966; Rescorla, 1968; Sidman, 1966; etc.). The experiments described here were conducted as a formal comparison of the behavioral events in the course of learning under the two traditions. The kinds of data usually collected within each tradition are determined by its theoretical framework. In the classical avoidance tradition, associated with a two-factor theory which poses sequential Pavlovian conditioning of tension and its subsequent reduction via the avoidance response, only responses which do or do not occur within avoidance "trials" are considered. Responses occurring between the arbitrary presentations of paired neutral and noxious stimuli are prevented,
10 citations
01 Jan 1979
TL;DR: This chapter will begin by placing the sorts of relationships between CS and UCS that Pavlov explored within a broader framework, one which should help the reader organize a large body of data, and which should suggest a variety of new experiments on classical conditioning.
Abstract: The last chapter described the sorts of experiments that led Pavlov to his conception of the conditions which are necessary and sufficient for the conditioning of excitation and inhibition. This chapter will begin by placing the sorts of relationships between CS and UCS that Pavlov explored within a broader framework, one which should help the reader organize a large body of data, and which should suggest a variety of new experiments on classical conditioning.
9 citations
TL;DR: This chapter reviews both the recent findings that have provided preliminary support for the feedback hypothesis of controllability and work that have attempted to assess the viability of this hypothesis.
Abstract: Publisher Summary Controllability exists when some aspect of the event, such as its occurrence or continuation, is contingent upon the organism's actions. The modulatory effect of controllability has been a focus of both experimental and clinical interest for at least the past four decades. This chapter reviews both the recent findings that have provided preliminary support for the feedback hypothesis of controllability and work that have attempted to assess the viability of this hypothesis. The experiments are designed with two goals in mind. The first goal is to increase the understanding of the feedback effect by testing under several conditions, using several dependent measures. The second goal is to determine whether feedback stimuli would in fact mimic controllability in situations not previously examined. By outlining the relative degrees to which controllability and feedback treatment interact with other factors, the findings advance in understanding both the areas of interest. While considering the conditions that limit the extent to which feedback stimuli attenuate the conditioning of fear to contextual cues, strong support is given to the hypothesis that the feedback effect depends upon the acquisition of conditioned inhibitory properties by the feedback stimulus itself. More specifically, with the imposition of conditions known to block or retard development of conditioned inhibition—which include (1) the inclusion of short intertrial intervals, (2) the delivery of stimuli in a random relation to shock, and (3) delaying the onset of the feedback stimulus following shock—the feedback effect on context conditioning is blocked in like fashion.
9 citations
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)....
[...]