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
DOI
17 Sep 2020
TL;DR: It is argued that for the (probabilistic) interpretation of generic sentences of the form ‘Gs are f ’ alternative groups, or kinds, of G play an important role and some experiments are described that empirically test this use of alternatives.
Abstract: In this paper we argue that for the (probabilistic) interpretation of generic sentences of the form ‘Gs are f ’ alternative groups, or kinds, of G play an important role. We describe the results of some experiments that empirically test this use of alternatives.

1 citations


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

  • ...For animal learning, Rescorla (1968) observed that rats learn a tone (cue/cause)-shock (outcome) association if the frequency of shocks immediately after the tone is higher than the frequency of shocks undergone otherwise. This holds, even if in the minority of cases a shock actually follows the tone. Gluck & Bower (1988) and others show that humans learn associations between the representations of certain cues (properties or features) and outcome (typically another property or a category prediction) in a very similar way....

    [...]

  • ...For animal learning, Rescorla (1968) observed that rats learn a tone (cue/cause)-shock (outcome) association if the frequency of shocks immediately after the tone is higher than the frequency of shocks undergone otherwise....

    [...]

  • ...For animal learning, Rescorla (1968) observed that rats learn a tone (cue/cause)-shock (outcome) association if the frequency of shocks immediately after the tone is higher than the frequency of shocks undergone otherwise. This holds, even if in the minority of cases a shock actually follows the tone. Gluck & Bower (1988) and others show that humans learn associations between the representations of certain cues (properties or features) and outcome (typically another property or a category prediction) in a very similar way. Thus, we associate outcome o with cue c, not so much if P(o|c) is high, but rather if ∆Po c = P(o|c)−P(o|¬c) is high, where ∆Po c is known as the contingency of o on c. As noted above, ∆Po c = P(o|c)−P(o|¬c) > 0 if and only if P(o|c)> P(o), i.e., the condition Cohen (1999) demands to be satisfied for relative readings of generics....

    [...]

  • ...For animal learning, Rescorla (1968) observed that rats learn a tone (cue/cause)-shock (outcome) association if the frequency of shocks immediately after the tone is higher than the frequency of shocks undergone otherwise. This holds, even if in the minority of cases a shock actually follows the tone. Gluck & Bower (1988) and others show that humans learn associations between the representations of certain cues (properties or features) and outcome (typically another property or a category prediction) in a very similar way. Thus, we associate outcome o with cue c, not so much if P(o|c) is high, but rather if ∆Po c = P(o|c)−P(o|¬c) is high, where ∆Po c is known as the contingency of o on c. As noted above, ∆Po c = P(o|c)−P(o|¬c) > 0 if and only if P(o|c)> P(o), i.e., the condition Cohen (1999) demands to be satisfied for relative readings of generics. In Tessler & Goodman (2019) and in van Rooij & Schulz (2019) it is hypothesised that (a strengthened version of) Cohen’s relative reading is the basic reading of generics....

    [...]

  • ...For animal learning, Rescorla (1968) observed that rats learn a tone (cue/cause)-shock (outcome) association if the frequency of shocks immediately after the tone is higher than the frequency of shocks undergone otherwise. This holds, even if in the minority of cases a shock actually follows the tone. Gluck & Bower (1988) and others show that humans learn associations between the representations of certain cues (properties or features) and outcome (typically another property or a category prediction) in a very similar way. Thus, we associate outcome o with cue c, not so much if P(o|c) is high, but rather if ∆Po c = P(o|c)−P(o|¬c) is high, where ∆Po c is known as the contingency of o on c. As noted above, ∆Po c = P(o|c)−P(o|¬c) > 0 if and only if P(o|c)> P(o), i.e., the condition Cohen (1999) demands to be satisfied for relative readings of generics. In Tessler & Goodman (2019) and in van Rooij & Schulz (2019) it is hypothesised that (a strengthened version of) Cohen’s relative reading is the basic reading of generics. So, in contrast to Cohen (1999), we don’t think that the absolute reading is the default reading, but only a special case of the (strengthened version of the) relative reading....

    [...]

Book ChapterDOI
Jeansok J. Kim1
01 Jan 2001
TL;DR: This article will discuss those types of classical conditioning whose neural basis is relatively well understood and this form of learning is ubiquitous across the phylogenetic scale.
Abstract: Classical or Pavlovian conditioning, the simplest form of associative learning demonstrated in a variety of animals (ranging from mollusks to humans), is hypothesized to be an elemental unit for complex learning. Classical conditioning ensues when an initially neutral conditional stimulus (CS) is paired in close temporal proximity with a biologically significant unconditional stimulus (US) that elicits a reflexive unconditional response (UR). Through the formation of a CS–US association, the CS comes to evoke a conditional response that typically mimics the UR and has an adaptive value. Classical conditioning is an ideal model system for investigating the neurobiology of learning and memory because (a) the stimuli are discrete and well defined; (b) only two stimuli are involved, and thus the learning or association of CS and US must occur at brain site(s) where the two pieces of information converge; (c) the onset and offset of the stimuli can be controlled precisely by the experimenter; and (d) this form of learning is ubiquitous across the phylogenetic scale. This article will discuss those types of classical conditioning whose neural basis is relatively well understood.

1 citations

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)....

    [...]