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: Results showed that when participants are faced with materials embedding relations between both adjacent and nonadjacent elements, they learn exclusively the type of relations they had to actively process in order to meet the task demands, irrespective of the spatial contiguity of the paired elements.
Abstract: In 5 experiments, results showed that when participants are faced with materials embedding relations between both adjacent and nonadjacent elements, they learn exclusively the type of relations they had to actively process in order to meet the task demands, irrespective of the spatial contiguity of the paired elements. These results are consonant with current theories positing that attention is a necessary condition for learning. More important, the results provide support for a more radical conception, in which the joint attentional processing of 2 events is also a sufficient condition for learning the relation between them. The well-documented effect of contiguity could be a by-product of the fact that attention generally focuses on contiguous events. This reappraisal considerably extends the scope of approaches based on associative or statistical processes.
117 citations
Cites background from "Probability of shock in the presenc..."
...However, a few years later, Rescorla and Wagner (1972) suggested that the phenomenon of blocking could account for the results of Rescorla (1968), because the unpaired occurrences of the US elicit conditioning to some background stimuli, which in turn, blocks the conditioning to the experimental CS....
[...]
...For instance, Rescorla (1968) showed that adding an unpaired US during training decreased conditioning, although the level of contiguity (i.e., the number of CS–...
[...]
TL;DR: Instrumental learning involves three primary events: a stimulus (S), a response (R), and an outcome (O) as mentioned in this paper, and evidence indicates the presence of binary associations among those events, as well as a hierarchical structure of the form S −(R −O).
Abstract: Instrumental learning involves three primary events: a stimulus (S), a response (R), and an outcome (O). Evidence is reviewed indicating the presence of binary associations among those events, as well as a hierarchical structure of the form S–(R–O). Experiments examining the conditions that produce learning, the content of the learning once it has occurred, and the way learning maps into performance all suggest the presence of such a hierarchical structure.
114 citations
Cites methods from "Probability of shock in the presenc..."
...There are three types of PavIovian experiments that are conventionally taken as supporting this idea: the Kamin (1968) blocking experiment, the importance of CS/US contingency in conditioning (Rescorla, 1968), and studies of relative validity...
[...]
TL;DR: Resistance to both prefeeding and to extinction, like response rate, exhibits behavioral contrast in pigeons.
Abstract: In Experiment 1, 5 pigeons were trained to peck a key on multiple schedules of food reinforcement. The reinforcer rate was constant in 1 component and varied between conditions in the alternated component. In the constant component, steady-state response rate and its resistance to both prefeeding and extinction were inversely related to the reinforcer rate in the alternated component. Thus, resistance to both prefeeding and to extinction, like response rate, exhibits behavioral contrast
113 citations
01 Jan 2009
TL;DR: Arnon et al. as discussed by the authors found that adults tend to learn from more segmented representations, and that these can hinder learning about the relations between segments (e.g. between articles and nouns).
Abstract: Granularity and the acquisition of grammatical gender: How order-of-acquisition affects what gets learned Inbal Arnon & Michael Ramscar Stanford University, CA 94305. Abstract Why do adult language learners typically never achieve the same level of language mastery as native speakers? We examine how prior knowledge and experience might influence the size of the linguistic units employed in learning, and as a consequence, what gets learned. We hypothesize that adult learners tend to learn from more segmented representations, and that these can hinder learning about the relations between segments (e.g. between articles and nouns). In particular, we focus on the acquisition of grammatical gender, an aspect of language later learners show difficulty with compared to native speakers. In a study of adults, we show that participants are better at learning grammatical gender in an artificial language when they are exposed first to article-noun sequences and then to noun-labels as compared to learners that start out with noun-labels and then hear article-noun sequences. This striking finding can be explained by a simple blocking effect. We discuss how the units children and adults learn from impact language learning. Introduction Why is acquiring a language to native proficiency in adulthood so difficult? Numerous studies have revealed that the expertise levels of native and non-native speakers diverge across many aspects of language, including pronunciation (Moyer, 1999), morphological processing (Johnson & Newport, 1989), and the use of formulaic speech and idioms (Vanlancker–Sidits, 2003). Given the many differences between children and adults, both in terms of cognitive and neural development and in terms of the social contexts in which they learn languages, it is perhaps not surprising that children and adults differ in their ability to learn. What is surprising, given adults’ proficiency when it comes to learning in other domains, is that children appear to learn languages far more successfully than adults. Various approaches have been taken in seeking to understand this pattern: Lennenberg (1967) argues that adults no longer have access to a biological window of opportunity for learning language. Newport (1990) and Elman (1993) emphasize differences in cognitive capacity, suggesting that adult’s increased memory hinders correct generalization by preventing them from ignoring some of the variability and complexity in their input. Other researchers (Kuhl, 2000; Neville & Bavelier, 2001) highlight the changes in neural plasticity and the way early neural commitment shapes consequent learning (e.g. learning the phonetic distinctions that are relevant to your language changes the sensitivity to non-phonemic distinctions, Werker & Tees, 1984). Here, we propose another difference: the linguistic units that adults learn from often differ from the ones children use. We suggest that the different background knowledge that children and adults bring to language learning shapes the linguistic units they employ in early language learning, and this in turn shapes subsequent learning. Adults come to the task of language learning with a great deal of prior knowledge about language; they know about words and grammar, and know the words and grammatical elements of their first language. Children, on the other hand, have none of this knowledge, and as a result are far more likely to be learning segmentation, meaning, and structure, interdependently, at the same time. We explore the hypothesis that these differences in background knowledge influence the linguistic units learners employ: adults learn from more segmented representations – with word boundaries more clearly marked – while children begin with larger, less segmented representations (that cross word boundaries). We suggest that the more segmented representations adults’ employ actually make it harder for them to learn about the relations between units. To examine this idea, we focus on the task of learning the agreement patterns between articles and nouns in languages with grammatical gender, an aspect of language that non-native speakers have considerable difficulty with (see e.g., Harley, 1979; Scherag, Demuch, Roesler, Neville & Roeder, 2004). If some of this difficulty is indeed related to the units that adult learners employ, manipulating these units should result in changes in learning. Having adults learn from larger units of language should enhance learning. Specifically, starting with sequences of language in which the article and the noun are less differentiated should facilitate learning of the relation between them. Learning grammatical gender: A case study Grammatical gender is a system found in many languages. It assigns all nouns (including inanimate ones) to noun classes, and marks neighbouring words for agreement (Corbett, 1991). In Hebrew, for example,
113 citations
Abstract: In three experiments we investigated the effect on the performance of thirsty rats of varying the instrumental contingency between lever pressing and the delivery of a saccharin reinforcer. In Expe...
112 citations
Cites background from "Probability of shock in the presenc..."
...Rescorla (1968) was the first to demonstrate this sensitivity for Pavlovian...
[...]
...An alternative strength account could be developed by analogy to Rescorla and Wagner’s (1972) explanation of contingency effects in Pavlovian conditioning....
[...]
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)....
[...]