Probability of shock in the presence and absence of CS in fear conditioning.
Reads0
Chats0
TLDR
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.read more
Citations
More filters
Book ChapterDOI
The Study of Animal Learning in the Tradition of Pavlov and Thorndike
TL;DR: The tradition founded by Pavlov and Thorndike is motivated by the conviction that certain pervasive phenomena of learning are captured in two paradigms; the first is Pavlov's experiment in salivary conditioning, the second is Thorndik's experiments with cats in a puzzle box as discussed by the authors.
Journal ArticleDOI
What Priming Techniques Can Tell Us about Associative Representations Acquired During Human Contingency Learning
TL;DR: Evidence available of associative representations created after human contingency learning obtained using priming techniques supports associative theories of learning and the assumption of spreading activation and associations between representations.
References
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
Pavlovian Conditioning and Its Proper Control Procedures
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.
Journal ArticleDOI
Predictability and number of pairings in Pavlovian fear conditioning
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.
Journal ArticleDOI
A relay sequencing device for scrambling grid shock.
Journal ArticleDOI
A traditional demonstration of the active properties of Pavlovian inhibition using differential CER
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−.
Related Papers (5)
A Theory of Attention: Variations in the Associability of Stimuli with Reinforcement
A model for Pavlovian learning: Variations in the effectiveness of conditioned but not of unconditioned stimuli.
John M. Pearce,Geoffrey Hall +1 more