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
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Water-deprived rats served in a conditioned lick-suppression paradigm designed to assess the associative structure underlying a partially reinforced Pavlovian inhibitor appear to have an inverse relationship in influencing associative responding to Stimulus X regardless of whether responding is measured with tests for inhibition or excitation.

49 citations

01 Jan 2007
TL;DR: The authors show that people respond differently when they make predictions as opposed to when they are asked to estimate the causal or the predictive value of cues: their response to each of those three questions is based on different sets of information.
Abstract: In three experiments, we show that people respond differently when they make predictions as opposed to when they are asked to estimate the causal or the predictive value of cues: Their response to each of those three questions is based on different sets of information. More specifically, we show that prediction judgments depend on the probability of the outcome given the cue, whereas causal and predictivevalue judgments depend on thecue-outcome contingency. Although these results might seem problematic for most associative models in their present form, they can be explained by explicitly assuming the existence of postacquisition processes that modulate participants’ responses in a flexible way.

49 citations

Book ChapterDOI
TL;DR: This chapter presents several classical conditioning models within a common formalism based on adaptive networks for associative learning and focuses on neural circuits in the Aplysia and mammalian cerebellum, which have been identified as critical to the learning and expression of classically conditioned behaviors.
Abstract: Publisher Summary This chapter presents several classical conditioning models within a common formalism based on adaptive networks for associative learning. Behavioral models can serve as the concise embodiments of multiple constraints imposed by the behavioral phenomena on a biological model. The key ideas are embodied by three influential models of classical conditioning within this adaptive network formalism: (1) the Rescorla–Wagner model, which can be taken as a version of the least mean squares (LMS) algorithm of adaptive network theory and shown to account successfully for a variety of phenomena of stimulus selection, as well as conditioned inhibition in the Pavlovian conditioning literature, (2) the priming model developed by Wagner and colleagues, which describes the ways in which unconditioned stimulus (US) processing can be modulated by antecedent stimuli, and (3) the sometimes opponent process (SOP) model that is a quantitative, real time, connectionist model, which addresses a broad range of phenomena in the Pavlovian conditioning and habituation literatures. The chapter also focuses on neural circuits in the Aplysia and mammalian cerebellum, which have been identified as critical to the learning and expression of classically conditioned behaviors.

49 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The authors postulate that the inhibitory pathway that returns conditioned response information from the cerebellar interpositus nucleus back to the inferior olive is the neural basis for the error correction learning proposed by Rescorla and Wagner (Gluck, Myers, & Thompson, 1994; Thompson, 1986).

49 citations


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

  • ...occurrence of the US (Rescorla, 1968; Wagner, 1969). In a related study, Rescorla (1968) showed that CS–US associations are highly sensitive not just to the co-occurrence (contiguity) between the CS and the US but also to their contingency, that is, whether or not the US is more likely to occur given that the CS is present relative to its likelihood given no CS....

    [...]

  • ...Kamin (1969). occurrence of the US (Rescorla, 1968; Wagner, 1969)....

    [...]

  • ...In a related study, Rescorla (1968) showed that CS–...

    [...]

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The present review, examines the mayor quantitative theories of Pavlovian conditioning and the phenomena to which they have been designed to account through a single formalism based on the neural network connectionist perspective.

49 citations


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

  • ...Still more evidence of the importance of the predictiveness of the US in acquisition was provided by Rescorla [97] in an experiment in which several groups of animals received the same number of CS–US pairings, but different probabilities of the US in the absence of the CS....

    [...]

  • ...[142], and Rescorla [97] suggested that although the CS and the US may be presented with an otherwise effective degree of coincidence, learning can fail if the informational or predictive value of the CS regarding the occurrence of the US is low....

    [...]

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)....

    [...]