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
Dissertation•
01 Nov 2019
TL;DR: In this article, the authors examined the sensitivity of these two behaviors (sign-tracking and goal-tracking) to changing contingencies and found that US-oriented behavior was more sensitive to contingency changes than CS-oriented behaviour.
Abstract: Associative theories assume a simple ordinal mapping between the strength of an
association between a conditioned stimulus (CS) and an unconditioned stimulus (US)
and conditioned behaviour in an experimental preparation. Recent studies that have
taken multiple measures of conditioned behaviour challenge this assumption. The pur-
pose of this thesis is a better understanding of the nature of these individual differences
in Pavlovian conditioning, combining empirical evidence with theoretical development.
It has been observed that simple auto-shaping procedures result in marked individual
differences: some rats show learning by interacting with the sign (sign-trackers, STs),
others by interacting with the food-well or the goal (goal-trackers, GTs). In Chapter
2, I examined the sensitivity of these two behaviours (sign-tracking and goal-tracking)
to changing contingencies. In both STs and GTs, US-oriented behaviour was more
sensitive to contingency changes than CS-oriented behaviour. Most attempts to ex-
plain this dissociation have appealed to a dual-mechanisms approach. In Chapter 3, I
present a new theoretical model, HeiDI, which integrates learning and performance from
a single-process perspective. In Chapter 4, I examine two of these predictions. The first
prediction relates to how the US-value affects the distribution of conditioned behaviour.
According to HeiDI, a higher US-value will result in higher levels of goal-tracking in
contrast with lower US value. Experiment 3 suggested that that a higher US-value
results in more CS-oriented behaviour, however this was not replicated in Experiment
4. The second prediction concerns an analysis of the feature positive effect, where the
discrimination emerges more readily for a feature positive design. HeiDI predicts that
a feature positive effect should be more evident in CS-oriented behaviour. Experiments
4 and 5 addressed this prediction, however the animals did not show learning in the
feature negative design. The implications of the new findings and the new model are
discussed in Chapter 5.
7 citations
7 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors reviewed the researches using the "dual-training paradigm" for investigating the animal behavior in the irrelevant situation which includes learned irrelevance and learned helplessness.
Abstract: Animal behavior in the irrelevant situation has been paid little attention in contrast to that in the relevant situation, i. e., typical conditioning researches. The present article reviewed the researches using the “dual-training paradigm” for investigating the animal behavior in the irrelevant situation which includes “learned irrelevance” and “learned helplessness” phenomena. To classify the researches, three criteria were applied; type of training (S-S* or R-S*), type of S* (aversive or appetitive), and type of contingency (+, -, or 0). The classification made it clear the direction of investigation.
7 citations
TL;DR: The authors found that the Pavlovian pairing operation is central to the acquisition of the autoshaped keypeck response in pigeons, and showed that pigeons are able to learn to peck a key following three pretreatments in which the key peck was prevented by a barrier which separated the subject from the response key and the hopper.
Abstract: Groups of pigeons were autoshaped to peck a key following three pretreatments in which the keypeck was prevented by a barrier which separated the subject from the response key and the hopper. The experimental group (Group PR) received explicit pairings of the keylight and the hopper cues, while the control groups received either a random pairing of the keylight and hopper cues (Group RC) or no stimuli (Group CH). Group PR autoshaped most quickly, with Groups CH and RC following in order. Groups PR and RC were significantly different. This difference was taken as evidence that the Pavlovian pairing operation is central to the acquisition of the autoshaped keypeck response.
7 citations
Cites background from "Probability of shock in the presenc..."
...…RC (random control) received, on the average, the same number of blocked key light presentations and blocked hopper presentations as Group PRo However, for Group RC the key light and hopper were programmed independently of each other, so any pairing that did occur was coincidental (Rescorla, 1968)....
[...]
TL;DR: This study demonstrates for the first time the central role of the thalamus in fear conditioning in humans, and confirms ideas from the animal literature, and demonstrates the more general effect of fearful faces perception.
Abstract: Despite a strong focus on the role of the amygdala in fear conditioning, recent works point to a more distributed network supporting fear conditioning. We aimed to elucidate interactions between subcortical and cortical regions in fear conditioning in humans. To do this, we used two fearful faces as conditioned stimuli (CS) and an electrical stimulation at the left hand, paired with one of the CS, as unconditioned stimulus (US). The luminance of the CS was rhythmically modulated leading to "entrainment" of brain oscillations at a predefined modulation frequency. Steady-state responses (SSR) were recorded by MEG. In addition to occipital regions, spectral analysis of SSR revealed increased power during fear conditioning particularly for thalamus and cerebellum contralateral to the upcoming US. Using thalamus and amygdala as seed-regions, directed functional connectivity was calculated to capture the modulation of interactions that underlie fear conditioning. Importantly, this analysis showed that the thalamus drives the fusiform area during fear conditioning, while amygdala captures the more general effect of fearful faces perception. This study confirms ideas from the animal literature, and demonstrates for the first time the central role of the thalamus in fear conditioning in humans.
7 citations
Cites background from "Probability of shock in the presenc..."
...In discriminative Pavlovian fear conditioning [Rescorla, 1968] a neutral stimulus (conditioned stimulus, CS1) is associated with an intrinsically aversive stimulus (unconditioned stimulus, US), e.g. a loud noise or an electrical shock, while a second neutral stimulus remains unpaired (CS2)....
[...]
...In discriminative Pavlovian fear conditioning [Rescorla, 1968] a neutral stimulus (conditioned stimulus, CS1) is associated with an intrinsically aversive stimulus (unconditioned stimulus, US), e....
[...]
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)....
[...]