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 results point to the important role played by cortical structures in the control of interdigestive gastric acid secretion in rats and if this mechanism is also present in humans, it may be involved in diseases caused by inappropriate gastric Acid secretion during the interprandial periods.
Abstract: Objective. To investigate whether interdigestive gastric acid secretion can be controlled by a possible memory-related cortical mechanism. Material and methods. To evaluate gastric secretion in rats, we used a methodology that allows gastric juice collection in rats in their habitual conditions (without any restraining) by pairing sound as the conditioning stimulus (CS) and food as the unconditioning stimulus (US). The levels of gastric acid secretion under basal conditions and under sound stimulation were recorded and the circulating gastrin levels determined. Results. When the gastric juice was collected in the course of the conditioning procedure, the results showed that under noise stimulation a significant increase in gastric acid secretion occurred after 10 days of conditioning (p<0.01). The significance was definitively demonstrated after 13 days of conditioning (p<0.001). Basal secretions of the conditioned rats reached a significant level after 16 days of conditioning. The levels of noise-stimula...
6 citations
TL;DR: Error-driven learning algorithms, which iteratively adjust expectations based on prediction error, are the basis for a vast array of computational models in the brain and cognitive sciences that often differ widely in their precise form and application: they range from simple models in psychology and cybernetics to current complex deep learning models dominating discussions in machine learning and artificial intelligence as mentioned in this paper .
Abstract: Error-driven learning algorithms, which iteratively adjust expectations based on prediction error, are the basis for a vast array of computational models in the brain and cognitive sciences that often differ widely in their precise form and application: they range from simple models in psychology and cybernetics to current complex deep learning models dominating discussions in machine learning and artificial intelligence. However, despite the ubiquity of this mechanism, detailed analyses of its basic workings uninfluenced by existing theories or specific research goals are rare in the literature. To address this, we present an exposition of error-driven learning - focusing on its simplest form for clarity - and relate this to the historical development of error-driven learning models in the cognitive sciences. Although historically error-driven models have been thought of as associative, such that learning is thought to combine preexisting elemental representations, our analysis will highlight the discriminative nature of learning in these models and the implications of this for the way how learning is conceptualized. We complement our theoretical introduction to error-driven learning with a practical guide to the application of simple error-driven learning models in which we discuss a number of example simulations, that are also presented in detail in an accompanying tutorial.
6 citations
Dissertation•
01 Jan 2005
TL;DR: This article found that participants can generalize repetition-based structures only when the repetitions were in sallient positions (in sequence edges but not middles), and they then studied the limitations of more language-related computations, concluding that the mind may use a computational toolbox of specialized and constrained perceptual primitives.
Abstract: Participants had to generalize repetition-based structures or ordinal structures without repetitions. General symbolic mechanisms should generalize both structures equally well; associationist mechanisms should process the ordinal structures better. Participants readily generalized repetition-based but not ordinal structures, structure changes elicting rapid ERPs only for repetition-based structures. When they found that participants could generalize repetition-based structures only when the repetitions were in sallient positions (in sequence edges but not middles). We then studied the limitations of more language-related computations. Participants learned phonotactic contraints in word-edges but not middles. In the next experiments, participants extracted category-based generalizations from speech streams, but only when the critical syllables were in word edges but not middles. In conclusion, the mind may use a computational toolbox of specialized and constrained perceptual primitives.
6 citations
Cites background from "Probability of shock in the presenc..."
...peuvent empêcher la formation de nouvelles associations ; par exemple, si l’animal a déjà appris que le son prédit la nourriture, il n’apprendra pas une association entre une lumière et la nourriture, car la lumière n’apporte aucune information supplémentaire par rapport au son (voir par exemple Kamin, 1969; Rescorla, 1968; Wagner, Logan, Haberlandt & Price, 1968)....
[...]
TL;DR: In this article, the authors compare the theory of direct perception with the computational/representational view of visual perception and cognition, and argue that direct perception does not involve computations of any sort; it is the result of direct pickup of available information.
Abstract: of the original article: Central to contemporary cognitive science is the notion that mental processes involve computations defined over internal representations. This view stands in sharp contrast to the \"direct approach\" to visual perception and cognition, whose most prominent proponent has been J. J. Gibson. In the direct theory, perception does not involve computations of any sort; it is the result of the direct pickup of available information. The publication of Gibson's recent book (Gibson 1979) offers an opportunity to examine his approach, and, more generally, to contrast the theory of direct perception with the computational/representational view. In the first part of the present article (Sections 2-3) the notion of \"direct perception\" is examined from a theoretical standpoint, and a number of objections are raised. Section 4 is a \"case study\": the problem of perceiving the three-dimensional shape of moving objects is examined. This problem, which has been extensively studied within the immediate perception framework, serves to illustrate some of the inherent shortcomings of that approach. Finally, in Section 5, an attempt is made to place the theory of direct perception in perspective by embedding it in a more comprehensive framework. Are the direct and indirect theories of perception incompatible?
6 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, the fundamental building blocks of contingency learning underlying people's acquisition of correlational and causal information in the world around them are investigated, and a program of research is described.
Abstract: People are extraordinarily good at establishing connections in memory—associative learning. Indeed, this is quite possibly their most frequently deployed cognitive skill. Learning contingencies—that one event is more likely when in the presence of another—is a crucial form of associative learning that allows one to make successful predictions, increasing the speed and accuracy of responding to events in the world. This article describes a program of research investigating the fundamental building blocks of contingency learning underlying people’s acquisition of correlational and causal information in the world around them.
6 citations
Cites background or result from "Probability of shock in the presenc..."
...This may also indicate that one can learn some event frequencies—here, the HIs and LOs— preferentially without necessarily learning other event frequencies—here, the blockwide frequencies (for an animal learning analog, see Rescorla, 1968)....
[...]
...Could the contingency learning effect actually be an effect of differential immediate repetition favoring the HIs? Schmidt et al. (2010) reanalyzed the data of Schmidt et al....
[...]
...Could the contingency learning effect actually be an effect of differential immediate repetition favoring the HIs?...
[...]
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)....
[...]