scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Journal ArticleDOI

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.

Content maybe subject to copyright    Report

Citations
More filters
Patent
17 Jun 2016
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors proposed methods for preventing stress-associated disorders. These disorders may be treated with a serotonin 2c receptor (5-HT2CR) antagonist prior to, during, or following a stress-related event.
Abstract: The invention relates to methods for preventing stress-associated disorders. These disorders may be treated with a serotonin 2c receptor (5-HT2CR) antagonist prior to, during, or following a stress-related event. Stress-associated disorders include, for instance, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

4 citations

Journal ArticleDOI

4 citations

Dissertation
01 Jan 1982
TL;DR: In this article, the authors investigated the relation between focus of control (LOC) and operant and classical conditioning, and concluded that classical conditioning was more helpful for increasing hand warmth, although most subjects preferred the internal LOC procedure.
Abstract: The present research investigated the relation between locus of control (LOC) and operant and classical conditioning of cutaneous (digital) vasomotor dilation Ten internal and ten external LOC subjects with equal numbers of males and females were selected on the basis of scores obtained on the Self-Control dimension of Reid and Ware's (1974) Three-Factor Internal-External Scale Eysenck's Personality Questionnaire was administered following subject selection All subjects experienced a biofeedback and a classical conditioning session in a within-subject control design Analyses indicated that classical conditioning obtained larger blood volume (BV) vasodilation response magnitudes than the operant procedure External LOC subjects tended to demonstrate superior BV vasodilation in both conditioning operations Interactional results were not significant although group means were consistent with the hypothesized directions In response size order, the largest BV vasodilation magnitude was exhibited by the external-classical group, followed by internal-classical, external-operant, and internal-operant No correlation was observed between extraversion-introversion and vasodilation performance Transfer trials replicated the trends evident in the experimental period, albeit with diminished response magnitude Post-experimental questionnaire data supported experimental results: both groups considered classical conditioning was more helpful for increasing hand warmth, although most subjects preferred the biofeedback procedure It was concluded that clinicians should seriously consider employing respondent technology in conditioning treatments of peripheral vascular disorders Future research implications along these lines were proposed

4 citations


Cites background from "Probability of shock in the presenc..."

  • ...Research support (Rescorla, 1968) has demonstrated that CS-outcome correlation is more important for conditioning than simple CS-UCS contiguity....

    [...]

References
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
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

Journal ArticleDOI
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

Journal ArticleDOI
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)....

    [...]