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
42 citations
TL;DR: This article showed that the performance of older adults lexical processing appears to improve continuously across the lifespan, and further identified other measures on which performance does not decline with age, and showed how these different patterns of performance fit within an overall framework of learning.
Abstract: As otherwise healthy adults age, their performance on cognitive tests tends to decline. This change is traditionally taken as evidence that cognitive processing is subject to significant declines in healthy aging. We examine this claim, showing current theories over-estimate the evidence in support of it, and demonstrating that when properly evaluated, the empirical record often indicates that the opposite is true. To explain the disparity between the evidence and current theories, we show how the models of learning assumed in aging research are incapable of capturing even the most basic of empirical facts of “associative” learning, and lend themselves to spurious discoveries of “cognitive decline.” Once a more accurate model of learning is introduced, we demonstrate that far from declining, the accuracy of older adults lexical processing appears to improve continuously across the lifespan. We further identify other measures on which performance does not decline with age, and show how these different patterns of performance fit within an overall framework of learning. Finally, we consider the implications of our demonstrations of continuous and consistent learning performance throughout adulthood for our understanding of the changes in underlying brain morphology that occur during the course of cognitive development across the lifespan.
42 citations
Cites background from "Probability of shock in the presenc..."
...John Benjamins Publishing Company All rights reserved on learning in associative tasks: cue background rates (Rescorla, 1968; Ramscar et al., 2013a; in the case of PAL, the frequency with which a cue word appears absent a response word), and blocking (the predictability of a response in the…...
[...]
...This means that unless the effects that sampling and prior learning can be expected to have on PAL learning are controlled for, it is impossible to know whether changes in PAL performance shown in Figure 2 result from increased experience or cognitive declines....
[...]
Book•
30 Nov 2010
TL;DR: In this chapter, the purpose of this research is to investigate whether the observed phenomena describe necessary conditions for the law of learning to hold (invariantly) true, and to find the psychological symmetries.
Abstract: tools to analyze the structure of psychological models. But they are just abstract tools after all. In any empirical science, the ultimate proof rests on experimental evidence. Nonetheless, perhaps paradoxically, here it is precisely where the full strength of symmetries shows: Not from the models of theories built on symmetry principles but from the intimate connection (through symmetry arguments) between such models and observed phenomena. If we look back to the problems faced by psychological models of associative learning as listed in section 2, we find that they relate to deficiencies that symmetry could be used to resolve. The first shortcoming, that no model accounts for all associative learning phenomena, refers to a lack of explanatory power in such models; the second one, that contradictory rules explain the same phenomena, claims for a normative approach; the third one, that models are partial, relates to the need for unifying principles where different theories that cover disjoint phenomena find common grounds and are made compatible; and the fourth one, that some phenomena remain unaccounted for, identifies a classification problem. It seems, therefore, that symmetries may be useful in solving such problems. First we must find the psychological symmetries. This is the purpose of our research. 6. IN SEARCH OF PSYCHOLOGICAL SYMMETRIES Although there is not a universally accepted ‘law of learning’, all psychological models coincide in assuming that learning takes place when a (relatively permanent) change in behavior happens as a consequence of some experience. Now, we need to know whether such law establishes sufficient symmetry conditions for the occurrence of the observed phenomena –or, in other words, we have to investigate whether the observed phenomena describe necessary conditions for the law to hold (invariantly) true. Unfortunately, a glimpse at the literature suggests it does not: 1. That the sensory and motivational features of the stimuli as well as their novelty and relevance affect learning are well documented facts (Kamin and Schaub, 1963; Pavlov, 1927; Jenkins and Moore, 1973; Randich and LoLordo, 1979; Lubow, 1989; Garcia and Koelling, 1966); 2. Procedurally, the idea that learning is contextspecific is also gaining ground (Bouton, 1993; Bouton and Swartzentruber, 1986; Hall and Mondragón, 1998); also, different results emerge depending on the order in which stimuli are presented during training and on the number (single or compound) and representation (elemental or configural) of the cues themselves (see, e.g., Pearce and Bouton, 2001 for a survey). This first setback may not challenge our search for psychological symmetries though. It could we argued that, after all, we should expect that the parameters in (a) affected the pace of learning (accelerating or decelerating the learning process, i.e., strengthening or weakening the links between nodes/stimuli as time goes), defining, in the extreme, explicit symmetry breaks. Unfortunately, the study of complex phenomena in (b) does not only tell us that the learning rate changes in different experimental conditions. What these results tell us is that the rules of learning themselves fluctuate depending on such factors and, consequently, that they do not reflect any genuine object of invariance. Not surprisingly, a mathematical analysis of the above-mentioned issues reveals that each of them violates one of the conditions for group formation: Associativity. This is rather worrying since associativity is the key condition for symmetry. It tells us that the concatenation of two different operations gives the same result, and that gives us
42 citations
TL;DR: The results obtained suggest that the temporal content of learning about paired events involves a single bidirectional association instead of 2 independent unidirectional, forward and backward, associations.
Abstract: In 1 experiment with humans and 3 experiments with rats, the authors sought evidence of temporal integration of independently acquired temporal relationships, including forward and backward temporal associations. The experiments were designed and analyzed in the framework of the temporal coding hypothesis (e.g., L. D. Matzel, F. P. Held, & R. R. Miller, 1988; H. I. Savastano & R. R. Miller, 1998) as a strategy toward illuminating the use of forward and backward temporal associations and assessing the directional nature of these temporal associations. The results obtained suggest that the temporal content of learning about paired events involves a single bidirectional association instead of 2 independent unidirectional, forward and backward, associations.
42 citations
TL;DR: Forms of inhibition were identified in human predictive learning that are qualitatively similar to those identified by P.C. Holland (1984) in rats, and negative transfer and the original discrimination were both abolished by individually pairing N with the outcome.
Abstract: Forms of inhibition were identified in human predictive learning that are qualitatively similar to those identified by P.C. Holland (1984) in rats. When P (positive) signaled the outcome and PN (N = negative) signaled the absence of the outcome, participants learned the discrimination, but the negative cue did not suppress responding to a transfer cue. Post-learning reversal training, in which N was followed by the outcome, did not abolish the original discrimination. These 2 results imply a configural form of inhibition. Negative transfer, which indicated a 2nd, elemental form of inhibition, was observed when neither PN nor N were reinforced during the discrimination stage. Under these conditions, negative transfer and the original discrimination were both abolished by individually pairing N with the outcome. Empirical parallels and differences with the animal conditioning literature are discussed.
41 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)....
[...]