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 authors generalize analyses of Douven and others to account for the appropriateness of conditionals in terms of evidential support, and show how this generalization helps to explain biscuit conditionals and conditional threats and promises.
Abstract: According to Adams (Inquiry 8:166–197, 1965), the acceptability of an indicative conditional goes with the conditional probability of the consequent given the antecedent. However, some conditionals seem to be inappropriate, although their corresponding conditional probability is high. These are cases with a missing link between antecedent and consequent. Other conditionals are appropriate even though the conditional probability is low. Finally, we have the so-called biscuit conditionals. In this paper we will generalize analyses of Douven (Synthese 164:19–44, 2008) and others to account for the appropriateness of conditionals in terms of evidential support. Our generalization involves making use of Value, or intensity. We will show how this generalization helps to account for biscuit conditionals and conditional threats and promises. Finally, a link is established between this analysis of conditionals and an analysis of generic sentences.
3 citations
Cites background or methods from "Probability of shock in the presenc..."
...…psychology, learning a dependency between two events C and A is measured in terms of the contingency DPCA of one event on the other (cf. Rescorla 1968):1 DPCA ¼ PðCjAÞ PðCj:AÞ; wherePmeasures frequencies: Contingency not simply measures whether the probability of C given A is high, but…...
[...]
...Thus, it is measured how representative or typical C is for A. Rescorla (1968) showed that rats learn a htone; shocki association if the frequency of shocks immediately after the tone is higher than the frequency of shocks undergone otherwise, even if shocks occur only in, say, 12% of the trials in…...
[...]
...2, Rescorla (1968) observed that rats learn a tone (cue/cause)shock (outcome/consequence) association if the frequency of shocks immediately after the tone is higher than the frequency of shocks undergone otherwise....
[...]
18 Mar 2017
3 citations
TL;DR: It is concluded that behaviour analysis has much to offer in this field: as well as providing robust behavioural phenomena against which biological variables can be assessed, the use of operant-conditioning based animal models of psychiatric disorders can inform the account of the disorder and allow us to evaluate behaviour analysis concepts.
Abstract: The use of animal models of human psychiatric disorders can be justified in terms of the evolutionary history of species, and such models are extensively employed in research for a variety of ethical and scientific reasons. They should have: face validity, in that the animal behaviour studied resembles the human behaviour in question; construct validity, meaning that similar biological mechanisms are involved as in the human disorder; and predictive validity in that treatments that are effective in the human disorder also affect the animal model. Two models involving operant conditioning are reviewed: conditioned suppression, which is well established as a model for clinical anxiety, and operant extinction which is being developed as a model of aspects of Alzheimer’s disease. The validity of these models is assessed, and their core features related to key concepts in behaviour analysis. It is concluded that behaviour analysis has much to offer in this field: as well as providing robust behavioural phenome...
3 citations
Cites methods from "Probability of shock in the presenc..."
...…on an operant baseline, and is sufficiently sensitive to the parameters of classical conditioning that the conditioned suppression, or relative reduction, of operant behaviour that results has often been used as a direct measure of the strength of classical conditioning (e.g., Rescorla, 1968)....
[...]
3 citations
DOI•
01 Jan 2008TL;DR: The authors argue that abductive reasoning ability is more primitive in that it is required to learn basic stimulus-stimulus relations and propose that extending this ability beyond the temporal limitations of our neural equipment requires the ability to sustain a representation in working memory and this may be facilitated by associating it with an endogenous rehearsable response, i.e., a speech sound.
Abstract: The ability to pass tests of stimulus equivalence seems to mark an important distinction between animals and humans that is tied to language. Most other animals are unable to reliably pass equivalence tests. Even linguistically trained chimps seem unable to pass them (Dugdale & Lowe, 1990). Moreover, pre-linguistic children show similar poor performance. Sidman (1990) argues that an innate logic (Fodor, 1975) would confuse explanandum with explanans, i.e., logical ability needs to be explained by more primitive behaviour. We argue that abductive reasoning ability is more primitive in that it is required to learn basic stimulus-stimulus relations. Moreover, we propose that extending this ability beyond the temporal limitations of our neural equipment requires the ability to sustain a representation in working memory and this may be facilitated by associating it with an endogenous rehearsable response, i.e., a speech sound. In sum, extending the temporal range over which associations can be learned using associated sound may tie together the origins of reasoning, language and working memory.
3 citations
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)....
[...]