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 2007
TL;DR: A major portion of delay activity in the rat mPFC reflects task-relevant sensory-motor activity, possibly related to behavioral strategies rather than to the local storage of stimulus-stimulus associations, which agrees with evidence suggesting that mP FC neurons are particularly responsive during the performance of actions related to the acquisition of actions.
Abstract: The medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC) plays a critical role in the organization of goal directed behavior. This role is suggested by the anatomy of mPFC as the region rests at the top of a complex cortical and sub-cortical hierarchy, receives convergent sensory and motor information from multiple modalities, and is the target of modulatory brainstem nuclei that respond to prediction and reward. Given these observations, it was hypothesized that mPFC neurons store associations between stimuli when the stimuli contribute to the prediction of reward. To test this hypothesis, neural ensemble spiking activity was recorded in the mPFC as rats performed a paired-associate discrimination task. In one condition, both elements of the paired-associate stimulus-sequence provided information about reward delivery. In another condition, only the first stimulus contributed to the prediction. As hypothesized, stimulus-selective, prospective delay activity was observed during sequences in which both elements contributed to rewardprediction. Unexpectedly, however, selective delay responses were associated with slight variations in head position and thus were not necessarily generated by intrinsic mnemonic processes. Interestingly, the sensitivity of neurons to head position was greatest during intervals when reward delivery was certain. These result suggest that a major portion of delay activity in the rat mPFC reflects task-relevant sensory-motor activity, possibly related to behavioral strategies rather than to the local storage of stimulus-stimulus associations. These observations agree with evidence suggesting that mPFC neurons are particularly responsive during the performance of actions related to the acquisition of
1 citations
Cites background from "Probability of shock in the presenc..."
...Rescorla and Wagner (1972) suggested that such outcome-mediated associative learning is driven by prediction error....
[...]
...Tolman’s notion of expectation and Thorndike’s emphasis on outcomes were framed in a more rigorous theoretical framework by Rescorla and Wagner (1972), who suggested that what determines the strength and direction of an association is the degree to which outcomes differ from expectations....
[...]
TL;DR: Two experiments explored the effects of Pavlovian (tone-shock) CS+, CS−, and truly random control (TRC) contingencies on two different food-reinforced instrumental baselines.
Abstract: Two experiments explored the effects of Pavlovian (tone-shock) CS+, CS−, and truly random control (TRC) contingencies on two different food-reinforced instrumental baselines. One food-reinforced baseline contained noncontingent shock, while the other did not. In the first experiment, a TRC contingency was shown to produce suppression of food-reinforced responding, while a CS− contingency did not. When noncontingent shock was added to the baseline, however, the TRC stimuli failed to produce suppression, and the CS− contingency increased response rates over baseline level. In a second experiment, the effects of TRC and CS+ contingencies were compared on these same two baselines. While the CS+ produced suppression on both shock and no-shock baselines, the TRC contingency again produced suppression on only the no-shock baseline.
1 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors used a spatial serial conditioning paradigm to assess the effectiveness of spatially informative conditioned stimuli in eliciting tracking behavior in pigeons and found that pigeons learned the spatial association between CS2 and CS1, and that temporal contingency facilitated its expression as tracking behavior.
1 citations
1 citations
TL;DR: In this article, the authors addressed several important topics in the field of associative learning in nonhuman animals: event contingency, associative retardation (learned helplessness and irrelevance), occasion setting, renewal of extinguished responses, acquired equivalence and distinctiveness, differential outcome effect, and retrospective inference.
Abstract: This article addressed several important topics in the field of associative learning in nonhuman animals: event contingency, associative retardation (learned helplessness and irrelevance), occasion setting, renewal of extinguished responses, acquired equivalence and distinctiveness, differential outcome effect, and retrospective inference. These topics have been studied with Pavlovian and instrumental conditioning preparations as behavioral test tubes for assessing animals’ cognitive abilities. The empiric data are suggesting highly cognitive abilities of animals in event processing. This article also reviewed studies conducted by Japanese psychologists taking the modern associationists approach. Although activities of Japanese researchers in this field of research are high, they are required to make a more unique contribution to the field.
1 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)....
[...]