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 2002
5 citations
Cites background from "Probability of shock in the presenc..."
...Rescorla (1968) has manipulated this last probability, varying it from 0 to 1 while maintaining P (US|CS) equal to 1....
[...]
TL;DR: It is proven that the structure of the equilibrium for a simple network trained on a basic contingency problem is quite different from the structure for a Rescorla-Wagner model faced with the same problem, and these structural differences lead to functionally equivalent behavior.
Abstract: The contingency between cues and outcomes is fundamentally important to theories of causal reasoning and to theories of associative learning. Researchers have computed the equilibria of Rescorla-Wagner models for a variety of contingency problems, and have used these equilibria to identify situations in which the Rescorla-Wagner model is consistent, or inconsistent, with normative models of contingency. Mathematical analyses that directly compare artificial neural networks to contingency theory have not been performed, because of the assumed equivalence between the Rescorla-Wagner learning rule and the delta rule training of artificial neural networks. However, recent results indicate that this equivalence is not as straightforward as typically assumed, suggesting a strong need for mathematical accounts of how networks deal with contingency problems. One such analysis is presented here, where it is proven that the structure of the equilibrium for a simple network trained on a basic contingency problem is quite different from the structure of the equilibrium for a Rescorla-Wagner model faced with the same problem. However, these structural differences lead to functionally equivalent behavior. The implications of this result for the relationships between associative learning, contingency theory, and connectionism are discussed.
5 citations
Additional excerpts
...between conditional probabilities [1], [6]–[11]....
[...]
TL;DR: The results suggest that empirical similarities are shared by interference between cues trained apart and competition between cues training together.
Abstract: In Pavlovian fear conditioning, context-mediated decrements in conditioned responding (e.g., the US preexposure effect) can counteract competition between cues trained together (e.g., overshadowing). Two experiments were conducted using rats in a conditioned lick suppression preparation to determine whether context-mediated competition also counteracts competition between cues trained separately (retroactive interference, or RI). In Experiment 1, a combination of degraded contingency and RI treatments produced less of a decrement in conditioned responding than did either of those treatments alone. Experiment 2 showed that RI treatment attenuates the normally deleterious effect of trial massing. The results suggest that empirical similarities are shared by interference between cues trained apart and competition between cues trained together.
5 citations
Cites methods or result from "Probability of shock in the presenc..."
...Thus, the present results do not show complete correspondence with the findings of Stout et al. (2003), who showed that overshadowing treatment and trial massing counteract each other....
[...]
...US training trials result in a reduction in responding to the CS (see, e.g., Rescorla, 1968)....
[...]
TL;DR: Reversible inactivation of the BNST reduced the expression of contextual freezing in the context paired with remote, but not imminent, footshock, and implications for anxiety behaviors are discussed.
Abstract: Previous work indicates that the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis (BNST) is involved in defensive freezing to unpredictable Pavlovian conditioned stimuli (Goode et al., 2019). Here we show that the BNST mediates freezing to contexts paired with remote (unpredictable), but not imminent (predictable), footshock. Rats underwent a fear conditioning procedure in which a single footshock unconditioned stimulus (US) was delivered either 1 (imminent) or 9 minutes (remote) after placement in the context; each rat received a total of four conditioning trials over two days. Contexts associated with either imminent or remote USs produced distinct patterns of freezing and shock-induced activity but freezing in each case was context-dependent. Reversible inactivation of the BNST reduced the expression of contextual freezing in the context paired with remote, but not imminent, footshock. Implications of these data are discussed in light of recent conceptualizations of BNST function, as well as for anxiety behaviors.
5 citations
Cites background from "Probability of shock in the presenc..."
...In this form of learning, a neutral conditioned stimulus (CS), such as an auditory tone, is paired with a salient and aversive stimulus, such as footshock [unconditioned stimulus (US)] (Maren, 2001a; Pavlov, 1927; Rescorla, 1968, 1988)....
[...]
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)....
[...]