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: A brief consideration of Allan R. Wagner's research output provides some insight into both the breadth of his interests and depth of his influence.
Abstract: This is an introduction to the special issue "Wagner Tribute." Allan R. Wagner was the first editor in chief of this journal. It is difficult to quantitatively measure the impact that a single individual has on an entire discipline, but a brief consideration of Wagner's research output provides some insight into both the breadth of his interests and depth of his influence. Furthermore, in one way or another the many contributions to this special issue will highlight the powerful role that Wagner's empirical and theoretical work has played and continues to play in driving research into the nature of simple associative learning processes. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).
01 Oct 2019
01 Jan 2017
TL;DR: In this article, it is shown that the behavioristischen Erklarungsansatze unzureichend sind, weil sie einseitig den Einfluss von Reizbedingungen und Bekraftigungen auf das Lernen thematisieren.
Abstract: Es werden elementare assoziative Lernprozesse behandelt, die zur Ausbildung von bedingten Reflexen, zum Erwerb neuer instrumenteller Verhaltensweisen und zur Unterscheidung von verhaltensrelevanten und -irrelevanten Situationsbedingungen fuhren. Dabei zeigen bereits Tiere erstaunliche Lernergebnisse bis hin zur Bildung von abstrakten Begriffen. Die fur diese Lernformen vorliegenden behavioristischen Erklarungsansatze werden anhand von Ergebnissen vor allem der tierexperimentellen Lernforschung einer kritischen Betrachtung unterzogen. Es wird gezeigt, dass die tradierten behavioristischen Erklarungsansatze unzureichend sind, weil sie einseitig den Einfluss von Reizbedingungen und Bekraftigungen auf das Lernen thematisieren. Innere Lernbedingungen wie Lerndispositionen, die Ausrichtung der Aufmerksamkeit oder das Streben nach Vorhersage von Effekten des eigenen Verhaltens bleiben unberucksichtigt, obwohl deren Einfluss auf das Lernen vielfach gezeigt werden kann.
Cites background from "Probability of shock in the presenc..."
...Diese Vermutung wurde von Robert Rescorla (1968), einem der einflussreichsten Erforscher tierischen Lernens, experimentell überprüft: Kontiguität zwischen CS und US ist bestimmt durch die Wahrscheinlichkeit, mit der beide Reize in einem raum-zeitlichen Zusammenhang gemeinsam auftreten (p(CS & US))....
[...]
Peer Review•
TL;DR: The main thrust of the article is to draw a distinction between an automatic form of TIPL, whereby the repeated occurrence of reward in close temporal contiguity with a visual stimulus determines perceptual learning of that stimulus (feature), and a more complex and cognitively demanding form of perceptual learning, whereby perceptual learning occurs as a result of the task-dependent contingency between a given stimulus ( feature) and reward.
Abstract: In this review, we explore how reward signals shape perceptual learning in animals and humans. Perceptual learning is the well-established phenomenon by which extensive practice elicits selective improvement in one’s perceptual discrimination of basic visual features, such as oriented lines or moving stimuli. While perceptual learning has long been thought to rely on ‘top-down’ processes, such as attention and decision-making, a wave of recent findings suggests that these higher-level processes are, in fact, not necessary. Rather, these recent findings indicate that reward signals alone, in the absence of the contribution of higher-level cognitive processes, are sufficient to drive the benefits of perceptual learning. Here, we will review the literature tying reward signals to perceptual learning. Based on these findings, we propose dual underlying mechanisms that give rise to perceptual learning: one mechanism that operates ‘automatically’ and is tied directly to reward signals, and another mechanism that involves more ‘top-down’, goal-directed computations. I have greatly enjoyed reading this engaging and inspiring review article. The authors of the article provide a concise and highly focused review of the recent literature on visual perceptual learning, and notably of the so-called task-irrelevant perceptual learning (TIPL). The main thrust of the article is to draw a distinction between an automatic form of TIPL, whereby the repeated occurrence of reward in close temporal contiguity with a visual stimulus (feature) determines perceptual learning of that stimulus (feature), and a more complex and cognitively demanding form of perceptual learning, whereby perceptual learning occurs as a result of the task-dependent contingency between a given stimulus (feature) and reward. I find this dichotomous view of perceptual learning, and of its modulation by reward, especially captivating and important, especially because we have recently elaborated a similar distinction between types of reward-dependent learning in the attentional domain that conform to classical conditioning and types that conform to operant conditioning ., 2013). Similar to what elaborated here, in prior studies Libera 2011) we could detect an impact of reward on attentional learning that conformed to classical conditioning using task variants in which participants were led to believe that rewards were received independently of their performance, in a lottery-like fashion. Conversely, in other work (Della Libera & Chelazzi, 2009) we could detect an impact of reward on attentional learning that conformed to operant conditioning using task variants in which participants were led to believe that rewards received in relation to specific stimuli depended on their attentional performance towards the same stimuli. I actually encourage the authors to note such remarkable consistency between notions that are being developed within
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)....
[...]